* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5668/2012, W.P.(C) 5664/2013,
W.P.(C) 5668/2013 and W.P.(C) 5677/2013
Decided on : 11.12.2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
NIDHI SURI ..... Petitioner
SUSHMA KAMRA ..... Petitioner
SWARAN KUMARI ..... Petitioner
INDU BALA ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms. Vinny Shangloo, proxy counsel for
Mr. Harish Katyal, Advocate with
Ms. Nidhi Suri in person.
versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Avnish Ahlawat and Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Advocate for R-1 & 2 with DEO-Dr. Mallikarjun K.S.
in W.P.(C) 5668/2012.
Ms. Nitika Khetrapal, proxy counsel for Ms. Nidhi Raman, Advocate for R-1 & 2 in W.P.(C) 5664/2013.
Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocate for R-1 & 2 in W.P.(C) 5668/2013.
Ms. Bandana Shukla, proxy counsel for Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Adv. for R-1 & 2 in W.P.(C) 5677/2013.
Mr. Rajesh Bhatia, Advocate for R-3/School. W.P.(C) 5668/2012 & connected matters Page 1 of 4 CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral)
1. On the last date of hearing, counsel for the petitioners had stated that the respondent No.3/School had not released the salary of the petitioner in W.P.(C) 5668/2012 for the months of May and June, 2012.
2. As counsel for the respondent No.3/School had submitted that he was not in a position to respond immediately, but he had assured the Court that if the salary payable to the petitioners for the aforesaid period has remained outstanding, the same would be paid with interest @ 9% per annum on the principal amount within two weeks, the matter was renotified for today.
3. Today, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/School submits that the salary of the petitioner in WP(C)No.5668/2012 for the month of May & June, 2012 has been paid with interest @ 9% per annum in the month of October, 2014, which fact is confirmed by learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions.
4. The remaining grievance of the petitioners is with regard to failure on the part of the respondent No.3/School in implementing the W.P.(C) 5668/2012 & connected matters Page 2 of 4 recommendations of the Fifth & Sixth Pay Commissions and further, for directing the respondent No.2/Department of Education to take action against the respondent No.3/School under Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act & Rules, 1973 on account of the corrupt practices allegedly adopted by the School, including the practice of taking back 50% of their salary from the teachers.
5. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2/DOE states that inspection of the respondent No.3/School's accounts was conducted in the School premises in the month of October, 2014 and now the School has been directed to present its books of account before the DOE/his nominee on 18.12.2014 for further scrutiny. She submits that the claim of the respondent No.3/School that it is facing financial crunch, has yet to be ascertained and further steps are required to be undertaken by the DOE in that regard.
6. Having regard to the submission made by the counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2/DOE that a notice to show cause was issued to the respondent No.3/School as long back as on 1.10.2012, it is deemed appropriate to direct the DOE to take the said show cause notice to its logical conclusion by taking a decision on or before 28.2.2015, under written intimation to all the concerned parties. W.P.(C) 5668/2012 & connected matters Page 3 of 4
7. As it is an admitted position that the respondent No.3/School has failed to release the statutory dues of the teachers as per the recommendations of the Fifth & Sixth Pay Commissions and the next academic year 2015-2016 shall commence very soon for which purpose, students are likely to be admitted in the month of January, 2015, in the interest of justice, it is deemed appropriate to direct the respondent No.3/School not to take any steps to admit new students for the next academic year, unless and until the DOE gives it a clean chit in respect of the irregularities, subject matter of the notice to show cause dated 01.10.2012.
8. With the aforesaid orders, the present petitions are disposed of. Needless to state that in case either of the parties is aggrieved by the decision taken by the DOE, they shall be entitled to seek their remedies in accordance with law.
(HIMA KOHLI)
DECEMBER 11, 2014 JUDGE
sk/rkb
W.P.(C) 5668/2012 & connected matters Page 4 of 4