Rusia v. Shahnaz Perveen

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the Order dated 21.05.2025, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „Tribunal‟) in O.A. No. 1683/2019, titled Shahnaz Perveen & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, whereby the said O.A. filed by the respondents herein was allowed with the following directions:-

Allowance and other emoluments payable to a newly recruited regular teacher in light of the decision taken by SDMC on 21.11.2017. The respondents are directed to pay the salary to the applicants accordingly forthwith, along with differential arrears of pay/emoluments w.e.f. 01.01.2016, but without interest, provided the payment is made within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10. If the respondents fail to comply with the aforesaid direction within the stipulated period, the applicants shall be entitled to interest at the General Provident Fund (GPF) rate on the arrears payable to them. This order shall be complied with by the respondents in accordance with the law. With these directions, the OA stands allowed in the above terms.”

2. To give the brief background of facts in which the present petition arises, the respondents were appointed as Contractual Teachers and have been working with the petitioner since around

2003. They had approached the learned Tribunal seeking salary at the “minimum of the pay-scale as per the 7th Central Pay Commission” (in short, „CPC‟).

3. The learned Tribunal, by the Impugned Order, by placing reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Jagjit Singh & Ors., (2017) 1 SCC 148, has granted the above relief to the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has granted the relief beyond the prayer made by the respondents. She submits that the only relief sought before the learned Tribunal was for the grant of salary at the “minimum of the pay-scale as per the 7th CPC” with effect from 01.01.2016, however, by the Impugned Order, the learned Tribunal, apart from granting the benefits of the 7th CPC, further directed the petitioner to pay the Dearness Allowances and other emoluments payable as are payable to a newly recruited regular teacher.

5. Placing reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Manohar Lal (Dead) by Lrs. v. Ugresen (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors., (2010) 11 SCC 557, and of this Court in Akella Lalitha v. Konda Hanumanthah Rao & Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 928, she submits that the relief beyond the prayer made, cannot be granted.

6. She further submits that the learned Tribunal, in the Impugned Order, has relied upon its earlier order dated 20.12.2023 passed in O.A. No. 1558/2020, titled Aditi Kumari v. GNCTD & Anr., which has been stayed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 14996/2024, titled Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. v. Aditi Kumari & Ors., vide Order dated 24.10.2024.

7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner; however, we find no merit in the same.

8. In granting the relief, the learned Tribunal has rightly placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh (supra), which has, inter alia, held as under:

58. In our considered view, it is fallacious and artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity.

9. The above Judgment has been followed by this Court in Roshan Khan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2024:DHC:8780-DB; and also in Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. v. Kamal Kant Sharma & Ors., 2017:DHC:1797-DB.