[ad_1]
The Delhi government informed the Delhi High Court Friday that it has issued an order for payment of salaries to disengaged fellows of the Delhi Legislative Assembly for the services rendered by them.
The counsel appearing for the finance and services departments of the Delhi government submitted before a single-judge bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad, “We issued orders on November 8 to all concerned that payments be made and on November 9 we sought compliance and we have started receiving the compliances. It is not only for these 16-17 petitioners it is for all who worked during this period.”
Justice Prasad recorded this submission and listed the application seeking payment of salaries to the fellows for the period they had worked and reinstatement of an earlier interim order (which had been subsequently vacated) along with the main plea on December 6.
On Monday, the HC had asked the departments to inform by when they would pay salaries to disengaged petitioner fellows as well as other similarly placed assistants and consultants for the services rendered by them.
The main plea challenges an August 9 order of the Delhi Assembly Secretariat disengaging services of 17 fellows to the Delhi Assembly Research Centre (DARC) program at the legislative assembly.
On September 21, Justice Prasad, in an interim order, had directed that services of the fellows should not be discontinued and stipend be paid to them till December 6. Thereafter, on October 3, the HC lifted the stay on their disengagement, noting that the issue was specifically argued before the Supreme Court, in a plea challenging the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023, with regard to control over services in Delhi.
Most Read
The Court had observed that the July 5 letter, in which the Lieutenant Governor had disengaged the Fellows/Associate Fellows of the DARC, was “specifically challenged” by the Delhi government before the apex court in an application filed in the services ordinance matter.
The HC had then said that the SC had declined to stay the termination and propriety demanded that the HC ought not to have passed the interim order. Last week, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the SC had clarified that this issue was not considered by it and hence, the interim order be reinstated.
In their main plea before the HC, the petitioner fellows have stated that the July 5 letter of the Services department directed that their engagement, for which the L-G’s prior approval was not sought, be discontinued and disbursement of salary to them stopped.
[ad_2]
Source link
