Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: May 25, 2018
RAJESH KUMAR RAGHAV & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kiran Singh and Ms. Jigyasa Rathi, Advocates
Through: Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC for respondent.
JUDGMENT
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 2018:DHC:3496 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.
JUDGE MAY 25, 2018 p