High CourtsDivision Bench(2017) 09 DEL CK 0269

Raj Kumar Anand vs Union Of India & Ors

Delhi High Court · Decided on 20 September 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vipin Sanghi, J · Rekha Palli, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 8119 Of 2015

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

67 paragraphs · 347 words

1.,"Existing scale of pay (PRT Grade-

II)","Rs.5500-9000

(Corresponding Grade

Pay of Rs.4200)",,,,

2.,"Pay Band applicable to post of PRT

(Grade-I)",PB-2 Rs.9300-34800,,,,

3.,"Upgraded to the scale of pay to the

post of PRT (Grade-II)","Rs.7450-11500

(Corresponding Grade

Pay of Rs.4600)",,,,

4.,Existing basic pay as on 10.8.2016,Rs.5875,,,,

5.,"Pay after multiplication by as factor

of 1.P86","10928 (Rounded off to

Rs.10930)",,,,

6.,Pay in the Pay Band PPB-2,Rs.10930,,,,

7.,"Pay in the pay band after including

benefit of bunching in pre- revised

scale of Rs.5500-9000 if applicable",Rs.13860,,,,

8.,"Grade Pay attached to the scale of

Rs.7450- 11500",Rs.4600,,,,

9.,"Revised basic pay-total of pay in

pay band and grade pay",Rs.18460,,,,

S.L.

No.",Post,"Present

Scale","Revised Pay

Scale","Corresponding

Pay Band &

Grade Pay",,"Para

No. of

the

Report

,,,,"Pay

Band","Grade

Pay",

(1),(2),(3),(4),(5),(6),(7)

XV

II",TEACHERS,,,,,

1,"Primary School

Teacher","Grade III

4500-7000

Grade II

5500-9000

Grade I

6500-

10500","Grade III

6500-

10500

Grade II

7450-

11500

Grade I

7500-

12000","PB- 2

PB- 2

PB- 3","4200

4600

4800",

,"# Posts of Education Officer/Assistant Director of Education stand merged

with post of Deputy Director of Education.",,,,,

19.

Thus, we find that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Government School Teachers Association (supra) has not been tested by this Court.",,,,,,

Having considered the order of the Tribunal in the Government School Teachers Association (supra), we find that the said decision of the Tribunal",,,,,,

does not at all deal with the interpretation of Rules and, in fact, the said case had been dismissed only because the Applicant therein being a Teacher",,,,,,

Association, was seeking parity with Assistant/Steno Cadre-which parity could not be established and, therefore, we find no justification for relying on",,,,,,

the said order to reject the Petitioner’s claim, which we find is fully justified and in consonance with the Rules.",,,,,,

20.

In these circumstances, the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the",,,,,,

Respondents are directed to fix the pay of the Petitioner in accordance with Rule 11 by considering the upgraded scale of the post which the,,,,,,

Petitioner was holding from 10.08.2006 and grant him all consequential benefits.,,,,,,