Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 6160
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of order: 17th August, 2023 + W.P.(C) 3117/2016 and CM.No. 14039/2016 CONVENT OF JESUS AND MARY ..... Petitioner Through: Ms.Ekta Mehta and Ms.Zainab Zaya Khan, Advocates versus DIRECTOR OF EDCUATION AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms.Laavanya Kaushik, Advocate for R-1/DOE Mr.Amit Singh Narang, Advocate for R-2, 3,4,6 and 8 Mr.R.K.Aggarwal and Ms.Ayushi Bansal, Advocates for R-9 CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
ORDER
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)
1. The petitioner vide the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the following reliefs:
“a. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 28.08.2015 of the respondent no.1 directing payment of alleged arrears.
b. Award costs in favor of the petitioner.
c. Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper.”
2. The factual matrix is reproduced herein below:
a) The petitioner (‘petitioner School’ hereinafter) is an unaided recognized Christian minority School imparting education upto class XII and is governed by the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act & Rules, 1973, (‘DSEAR Act, 1973’ hereinafter) and is managed by the Jesus & Mary Delhi Educational Society. Respondent No.1 is the Director of Education (‘respondent Director’ hereinafter) and respondent Nos.2-9 (‘respondent teachers’ hereinafter) are teachers in the petitioner School.
b) The respondent Director vide circular dated 31st December, 2009 extended benefits of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (‘MACP’ hereinafter) to the staff of aided schools under the Directorate of Education. The petitioner School being an unaided Christian minority school receiving no grant or aid from the Government also decided to grant MACP benefits to its staff.
c) The respondent teachers filed a Writ Petition bearing No. 1055/2013 against the petitioner School for the grant of benefits of Assured Career Progression Scheme (hereinafter ‘ACP’) & MACP Scheme including fixation and re fixation of pay in terms of the 5th and 6thCentral Pay Commission (hereinafter ‘CPC’) with 24 percent interest per annum. The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19th September, 2014 disposed of the aforementioned Writ Petition and directed the respondent Director to examine the records of the petitioner School regarding payments made and amounts payable to the respondent teachers, if any.
d) The respondent Director in compliance with the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, conducted a hearing regarding the amount payable on 30th October, 2014 which was attended by the representatives of the petitioner School as well as the respondent teachers. The main issue discussed in the said hearing was regarding grant of benefits of ACP and MACP schemes and also the consequential benefits including fixation and re-fixation of pay in terms of the 5th& 6th CPC recommendations.
e) The respondent Director in its final order dated 28th August, 2015 observed that the issue for implementation of MACP Scheme to private unaided schools is yet to be decided by the Delhi School Education Advisory Board. However, the respondent Director referred to the available records and determined the amount of arrears as under-
| S No. | Name of the Petitioner | Amount Due | Amount Drawn | Difference |
| 1. | Ms. Deepa Joshi | Rs.67,06,173/- | Rs.66,43,641/- | Rs.1,57,240/- |
| 2. | Ms. Sunanda Bhasker | Rs.54,42,825/- | Rs.2,69,934/- | Rs.1,72,891/- |
| 3. | Ms. Renuka | Rs.54,42,825/- | Rs.52,69,934/- | Rs.1,72,891/- |
| 4. | Ms. Pratima Saxena | Rs.72,14,687/- | Rs.68,34,633/- | Rs.3,80,054/- |
| 5. | Ms. Urvanshi Punj | Rs.54,04,712/- | Rs.53,12,810/- | Rs.91,902/- |
| 6. | Sh. Amar Jyoti | Rs.49,32,428/- | Rs.54,66,188/- | Rs.5,33,760/- (recoverable) |
| 7. | Ms. K. Jaya | Rs.67,06,173/- | Rs.66,43,641/- | Rs.62,532/- |
| 8. | Sh. Satish Kr. Bhardwaj | Rs.50,56,341/- | Rs.47,07,975/- | Rs.3,56,142/- |
f) The respondent Director vide order dated 28th August, 2015 directed the Management of the petitioner School to pay arrears as stated above to the respondent teachers within one month from the date of receipt of this order or in the shortest possible time after informing the respondent teachers the cause of delay.
g) Aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent Directorate, the petitioner School filed the instant Writ Petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner School
