WRIT PETITION 13987/2009 on 21 December 2009

1. Whether reporters of Local No. papers may be allowed to see the judgment? papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the reporter or not? No. 3.Whether the judgment should be No. reported in the Digest? 3.Whether the judgment should be No. reported in the Digest?

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

*

1. The petitioners, Director of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. have preferred this writ petition, challenging the order dated 15.05.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.1790 of 2008, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the aforesaid Original Application filed by the respondent and issued a direction to the petitioners to accord notional pay fixation to the respondent TGT from 1984. The Tribunal has also held that, consequently, the respondent would be entitled to grant of two increments in notional pay fixation and also to the grant of senior scale of Rs.6500-10500 on completion of 12 years of regular service in the entry scale of TGT.

2. The respondent was granted notional appointment and seniority as TGT with effect from 1984 on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ishwar Singh Khatri & Ors.1993 (2) SCALE 730. The petitioners, however, sought to deny notional pay fixation to the respondent, on the ground that the Supreme Court had only talked about assigning proper seniority but had not granted the relief of notional pay fixation. This led to the filing of the aforesaid Original Application by the respondent. As aforesaid, the Original Application of the respondent has been allowed by the Learned Tribunal.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners before us is that the respondent could not be given notional pay fixation of pay. We see no justification in the stand of the petitioners.

4. Once the respondent had been granted notional seniority from 1984, i.e. she is being treated as being in service from 1984 onwards, the said fiction has to be given its full effect, including for purposes of pay fixation. Therefore, the pay of the respondent ought to have been fixed as if she had joined in the year 1984 and on the basis that she had earned the increments, and benefitted from wage revision, which may have taken place in the meantime. She would also be entitled to benefits under the Assured Progression Scheme.

5. In our view, there is no error in the order of the Tribunal, and the same appears to be perfectly legal and justified. We may, however, clarify that the pay fixation from 1984 is only notional and that, by itself, would not entitle the respondent to seek arrears of pay for the period for which she has actually not worked. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

DECEMBER 21, 2009

ANIL KUMAR, J.

sr