*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 22nd July, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 455/2009
% LALITA BHATIA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Jitender Singhwith Ms.
Priyanka Singh, Advocates
Versus
THE G.M.NORTHERN RAILWAYS & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Neeraj Attri, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Joydeep Mazumdar, Advocate
for R-2.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Not necessary
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Not necessary
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The nine petitioners seek mandamus for re-opening of Shishu Shiksha Prathmik Vidhyalaya being run by the respondent no.2 Northern Railways Women Welfare Organization, stated to be under the control of the respondent no.1. The petitioners claim that they were employed with W.P.(C)8216/2008 Page 1 of 5 the said Vidhyalaya and the Vidhyalaya was closed down all of a sudden on 1st April, 2008 without notice and affecting not only the petitioners but the children at large of the area. The petitioners claim to have been in employment of the Vidhyalaya as teachers for the last 32 to 35 years and claim that with its closure they have been rendered workless.
2. Notice of the petition was issued. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.2 pleading has been stated that the respondent no.2 is a Society for the welfare of children of the Railways' employees; that the members of the Society are the wives and daughters of senior officers of Northern Railways; that the said Society is not an adjunct body of Northern Railways; that the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis for one academic session only and under the terms of their appointment were not entitled to any regular employment and their services could be dispensed with one month's notice. It is further pleaded that the funds of the respondent no.2 come from holding charity events and there is no permanent income of the respondent no.2 Society. On enquiry, the counsel for the respondent no.2 states that no funds are received from the W.P.(C)8216/2008 Page 2 of 5 Railways.
3. Qua the decision to close down the Vidhyalaya aforesaid, it is stated that the said Vidhyalaya was not a recognized school and the students passing out therefrom were suffering as they were not able to obtain admission in any recognized school; that the curricula of the said Vidhyalaya was also not as per the Guidelines of CBSE and as such it was decided to close the same. It is further pleaded that most of the petitioners are wives of Railway employees and were in fact being paid only a nominal amount and were working in the Vidhyalaya and their activities in the Vidhyalaya were as a social work.
4. It is also denied that the proper notice of intended action of closure of Vidhyalaya was not served. It is stated that three months prior to the closure with the end of the academic session, all concerned were notified.
5. The respondent no.2 along with counter affidavit filed its Certificate of Incorporation and Rules & Regulations as well as terms of appointment of the petitioners and the notice issued of closure. W.P.(C)8216/2008 Page 3 of 5
6. The respondent no.1 Railways has filed CM No.8388/2011 under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC for deletion of its name from the array of respondents stating that it has no concern or control over the functioning of the respondent no.2 Vidhyalaya.
7. The petitioners have filed an additional affidavit controverting the contents of the counter affidavit. It is further stated that the respondent no.2 Society is also running a canteen at Central Rail Hospital at Pachkuiyan Road, New Delhi, a Beauty Parlour and a Knitting Centre at Paharganj, New Delhi and a Creche at Baroda House, New Delhi in the premises of the respondent no.1 which is also paying the electricity bills of the said premises.
8. On the basis of the documents filed along with the counter affidavit of the respondent no.2, disclosing the respondent no.2 to be a Society governed by its Rules & Regulations and Bye-Laws and which do not show the respondent no.1 Railways to have any control over the affairs on the respondent no.2, the writ petition cannot be said to be maintainable against the respondent no.2 Society. The petitioners have been unable to show any duty owed by the respondent no.2 Society to continue with the W.P.(C)8216/2008 Page 4 of 5 Vidhyalaya. The petitioners have not claimed any relief in the petition qua the illegality if any in the termination of their employment and/or arrangement by the respondent no.2 Society.
9. There is thus no merit in the petition; the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) JULY 22, 2011 pp/bs (corrected and released on 9th August, 2011) W.P.(C)8216/2008 Page 5 of 5