Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
JYOTI SINGH
Kuttamparampath Sudha Nair – Appellant
Versus
Managing Committee Sri Sathya Sai Vidya Vihar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek salaries per 7th cpc (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. claims for salaries based on exact dues (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. legal basis for salary demands established (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. school argues against payroll requirements (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. doe emphasizes policy for wage parity (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. court's stance on petition maintainability (Para 15 , 16) |
| 7. court's examination of section 10 applicability (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 8. historical context affirms section 10's relevance (Para 23 , 24) |
| 9. decisions reaffirm section 10's scope (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 10. unambiguous duty of schools to comply (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 11. doe's mandate directs compliance obligation (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 12. financial constraints do not exempt compliance (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 13. court directs salary adjustment and timelines (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners praying inter alia for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the Respondent/School to pay salaries and other emoluments to them as per the recommendations of the Seventh Central Pay Commission, at par with their contemporaries in the Government and Government aided
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
