Raj Kumar vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi And Ors

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The  applicant  was  appointed  as  a  Teacher  by  a  Private Institution, Delhi. The Institution in turn was administered grant in aid. It is stated that under the Scheme that is in force, 95% of the salary of an employee admitted to grant in aid is to be paid by the Government and remaining 5% of salary, by the Management of the Institution. According to the applicant, the Institution was closed in the year 2000 and thereafter he is being posted in one institution or the other being run by the Government.

This OA is filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to pay him salary on par with teachers with State run Schools since 1985, with all consequential benefits.

The respondents filed counter affidavit, opposing the OA. An objection is raised as to the maintainability of the OA. It is stated that that the applicant was being paid 95% of the salary in accordance with the Scheme, and 5% was to be paid by the Management.

We heard Shri Pankaj Jain, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Esha Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondents.

Two serious objections exist as to the maintainability of the OA. The first is that the applicant, as of now, is not a Government servant. Though the employees of some of the private institutions, adminitted grant in aid, were absorbed in Government service at a subsequent stage, the applicant is not the one, who was absorbed. Even now, he continues to be an employee of the institution which was admitted to grant in aid. It is a different matter that he is being posted at various institutions on account of the fact that the one where he was initially appointed was closed. The Administrative Tribunal would have jurisdiction only in respect of the service matters and the Government employees, but not the employees of the private institutions.

The second is lack of clarity in the prayer, coupled with the limitation. The prayer in the OA reads as under:-

"a) Issue a direction to the Respondents to pay the emoluments at par to the petitioners with other teachers since 1985 with the state run schools.

b) direct the Respondents to pay the balance emoluments and other consequential benefits to the petitioners.

c) pass any other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper."

The applicant is seeking relief from 1985 and on the face of it, it is barred by limitation. Secondly, the relief is vague, and lacking in clarity.

Viewed from any angle, we do not find any merit in the OA. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.