* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No.7790/2009
Date of Decision : 06.5.2009
SHRI BRAHAM SINGH & ORS. ......Petitioners
Through :Mr.U.S.Chaudhary,
Advocate.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ...... Respondent
Through : Ms.Purbali Bora for
Ms.Aruna Tiku, Advocate.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? NO
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? NO
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
1. This writ petition filed by the petitioner in which the main prayer of the petitioner is to pay the full salary for the period from 9th August, 1995 to 12th May, 1998 on the ground that the Management of the respondent/School had been taken over that under Section 20 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Act) by the Directorate of Education.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners who are six in number are claiming themselves to be the employees of M/s Hardev Co-Education Middle School, Hardev Puri, Delhi which is recognized by the Directorate of Education WP(C) No.7790/2009 Page 1 of 5 under the Delhi School Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is alleged that the Management of the aforesaid school was taken over under Section 20 of the Act by the Directorate of Education vide orders dated 09.8.1995 on the ground that the Managing Committee of the school was mismanaging the school. It is alleged that the present petitioners and employees had filed a writ petition bearing No.4777/1996 titled as Braham Singh & Ors. Vs. Administrator & Ors. directing the respondents to pay the full emoluments as were admissible to them in compliance to Section 10 of the Act. The said writ petition is stated to have been allowed by this Court on 17.12.1997 directing the respondents to pay full salary to the petitioner.
3. The order dated 17.12.1997 which was passed by the learned Single Judge was in the following terms:-
"CM 5994/1997 in CW 4777/96 As per the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of B.L.Verma and Os. Vs. Lt. Governor and Ors. Bearing C.W No.327/78 decided on 7th August, 1979, it is the Administrator who has taken over the school, thus respondent No.1 and 2 are responsible to pay the salary of the employees. Therefore, directions are accordingly given to the respondent No.1 and 2 to consider the case of payment of salary to the petitioners within two weeks from today, pursuance to the judgment of Division Bench in CW 327/78.
Petition stands disposed Dasti."
Sd/-
Usha Mehra J."
WP(C) No.7790/2009 Page 2 of 5
4. So far as petitioner no.6 is concerned, he is stated to have filed a similar petition bearing WP(C) No.3640/1998 which was disposed of on the same lines on which the earlier writ petition was disposed of. This order was passed on 10.12.1999.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the entire salary for the period when the Management of the school was paid to them. However, they were paid only at the initial of the pay scale admissible to such employees without taking into consideration the past services and the past basic pay which the petitioner employees were drawing with the respondent /school.
6. Another development had taken place in between inasmsuch as the aforesaid orders of the Court were not complied with and a contempt petition bearing CCP No.137/1998 was filed for ensuring compliance of the orders of the learned Single Judge. Though during the pendency of the contempt petition some payment was purported to have been made to the petitioner /employees but their grievance persists that the complete arrears and pay allowances have not been paid to them. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the contempt petition observed that if the petitioners are entitled to certain additional benefits, the same could not be given to the petitioner /employees in the contempt petition for which they will have to file a substantive separate petition or take such appropriate proceedings in accordance with law as may be permissible. WP(C) No.7790/2009 Page 3 of 5
7. With these directions, the contempt petition was also disposed of on 9th March, 2004.
8. Now the petitioner have woken up after expiry of five years from the date of disposal of the contempt petition again filed the present writ petition claiming those arrears of pay and allowances which they claimed are still due and payable to them in terms of the orders of the learned Single Judge. The period has been specified as 09.8.1995 to 12.5.1998 for which these arrears of pay and allowances are stated to be admissible to them.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Although there is no period of limitation prescribed for the purpose of filling of the writ petition but the Apex Court in case titled State of M.P. Vs. Bhailal Bhai AIR 1964 SC 1006 has very categorically laid down that normally speaking the period which is prescribed under the Limitation Act should be sufficient enough to file a writ petition though this period can be even less in a given case.
10. The present writ petition is in fact claiming arrears of pay and allowances. According to the Limitation Act, the maximum period within which the arrears of money due and payable or suit for recovery of any money can be filed is within three years from the date of accrual of the cause of action. Even if the cause of action is not reckoned from 12.5.1998 but from the date of disposal of the contempt petition, which is 9th March, 2004 the present writ petition which is inordinately delayed and hit by WP(C) No.7790/2009 Page 4 of 5 laches because it is filed after expiry of three years. The petitioners are trying to rake up not only a stale claim but also the disputed question of fact.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, I feel that the writ petition totally mis-conceived as it is hit by inordinate delay and laches apart from raising the disputed questions of fact. The writ petition is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
V.K. SHALI, J.
MAY 06, 2009 RN WP(C) No.7790/2009 Page 5 of 5