High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 05 DEL CK 0372

RAJESH KUMAR RAGHAV & ORS. vs DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ORS.

Delhi High Court · Decided on 25 May 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
SUNIL GAUR
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
W.P.(C) 5668 OF 2018 & CM No. 22079 OF 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

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

Loading membership options…

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

17 paragraphs · 355 words
1.

In the first round of litigation, petitioners had made grievance that they have not been issued appointment letters and they are not being paid salary

as per the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission.

2.

Vide order of 12th January, 2018 in WP (C) Nos. 12005/2016 and 11687/2017 titled Rajesh Kumar Raghav & Ors. & Sandeep Kumar & Anr. Vs.

Directorate of Education and Anr., respondent-School was directed to consider petitioners’ Representation regarding payment of salary etc.

3.

Regarding issuance of appointment letters to petitioners, counsel for respondent no.2 had undertaken that the appointment letters would be issued to

petitioners. Now, the appointment letters have been issued to petitioners, but their grievance is that these appointment letters are defective.

4.

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners were working with the respondent-School on regular basis. But now the appointment letters

have been issued on contractual basis and term of some of the petitioners is ending on 31st May, 2018 and 1st July, 2018 as per the appointment

letters now issued. It is further submitted by petitioners’ counsel that the grievance against the impugned appointment letters has been already

made to respondent-School by way of a Representation of 23rd February, 2018, but there is no response to the said Representation.

5.

Despite service of advance notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent-School.

6.

In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition with direction to respondent-School to effectively

consider petitioners’ Representation of 23rd February, 2018 and to give a speaking response thereto, within a period of four weeks and the fate of

Representation be made known to petitioners within a week thereafter, so that petitioners may avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be. Till

it is so done, let status quo as of today in respect of service of petitioners be maintained by the respondent-School.

7.

Respondent-School be apprised of this order forthwith, to ensure its compliance.

8.

With the aforesaid directions, this petition and application are accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order be given dasti to petitioners’ counsel.