Mukund Lal S.D. Public School, ... vs Smt. Darshana Kathuria, Smt. Raj ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 1033 Del

JUDGMENT

1. The Appellants, in this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent, have challenged the correctness of the judgment and order dated 25th January, 2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CW No.3517/1996. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by Respondents No.1 to 17 who are employees of the Appellants.

2. Some time in 1968, the Appellants started a school in the name of Shri Sanatan Dharam Lajwanti Adarsh Vidyalaya. The school began with primary classes but during the year a Nursery Wing was also added. The school was not aided by Respondent Nos.18 or 19. Respondents No.1 to 17 joined the Nursery Wing of the aforesaid school on various dates from 1971 onwards.

3. Sometime in 1971, the Appellants moved an application for recognition of the school including its Nursery Wing. The application was considered by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short the MCD). A resolution was passed by the Education Committee of the MCD on 20th April, 1972 granting recognition to the school run by the Appellants subject to certain conditions being fulfillled by them. It is nobody's case that the conditions laid down were not fulfillled.

4. There cognition granted to the school run by the Appellants continued from time to time and we were told by learned counsel for Respondents No.1 to 17 that even today the school, including the Nursery Wing thereof is recognised under the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (for short the Act) which came into force with effect from 27thApril, 1973. The grievance of Respondents No.1 to 17 was that in spite of recognition being granted to the Nursery Wing of the school run by the Appellants, they were not being given the scales of pay and allowances granted to employees of other recognised unaided schools. According to these Respondents, the Appellants were violating the provisions of Section 10 of the Act by denying them the appropriate scales of pay and allowances.

5. In this background, Respondents No.1 to 17 filed CW No.3517/1996in this Court wherein they prayed for an appropriate writ of mandamus for grant of parity of wages and other emoluments including conditions of service as applicable to employees of other recognised institutions. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and held that the writ petitioners were entitled to parity of wages and other emoluments as their counterparts in recognised schools.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the Appellants have preferred this appeal contending, inter alia, that the Nursery Wing of the school run by the Appellants is not recognised and, therefore, there can be no question of parity in wages and other emoluments in favor of Respondents No.1 to 17.

7. We heard learned counsel for the parties on 8th May, 2002 when judgment was reserved.

8. Learned counsel for the Appellants placed reliance on a letter dated Nil which appears on page 80 of the paper book to contend that the Nursery Wing of the school was not recognised. As per this letter which bears an illegible signature (with no name) and is a hand written document purported to be written on behalf of the MCD, it isstated that the Nursery Wing of the school run by the Appellants is not recognised by the MCD as per the provisions of the Act. We cannot place any credence on this letter for the reason that the identity of its author is not known, it is not known whether the author of the letter had the authority to issue it and the letter is undated.

9. The fact of the matter is that Respondents No.1 to 17 had positively averred that the Nursery Wing of the school run by the Appellants is recognised as per the provisions of the Act. This has not been controverter by the Appellants either by showing that the conditions laid down by the Education Committee of the MCD as per the resolution dated 20th April, 1972 were not acceptable to the Appellants or were otherwise not complied with. Respondents No.1to 17 have placed another document on record which is dated 20th November, 1973 which makes a reference to another resolution No.724 dated 8th October, 1973 whereby the Department of Education of the MCD has granted recognition with aid to the school run by the Appellants from 15th July, 1973 to 30th April, 1974 subject to certain conditions being fulfillled.

10. None of these facts have been controverter in this Court either by the MCD or by the NCT of Delhi. On the contrary, our attention has been drawn to an affidavit dated 23rdApril,1998 filed by the MCD in CW No.5564/1997 (Parents Teachers Association of Shri Sanatan Dharam Lajwanti Adarsh Vidyalaya v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.). In this affidavit, it is stated, inter alia, by Shri B.C. Narula, Deputy Education Officer (Grants) of the MCD as follows:-

"At the outset, I state that at this stage Answering Respondent is filing the short Affidavit and reserve its right to file Affidavit in detail should the need so arise.

1. That recognition to the Shri Sanathan Dharam Lajwanti Adarsh Vidhyalaya AshokNagar, Delhi was accorded without grant in aid initially for the period w.e.f. 1/5/72 to 30/4/73 under the terms and conditions of Municipal Corporation of Delhi. A copy of and the recognition letter is enclosed herewith as Annexure-R-1.

That recognition with grant in aid to Shri Sanathan Dharam Lajwanti Adarsh Vidhyalaya, Ashok Nagar, Delhi was accorded from 15/7/73 to 30/4/74, on the usual terms and conditions.

That again recognition with aid was granted from 1/5/73 to 30/4/74. The Extension with recognition with aid was granted on yearly basis till 30/4/83 and, regular recognition with grant in aid was accorded w.e.f. 1/5/85 under the following terms and conditions:-

(a) to (c) xxx xxx xxx"

11. In addition to the documents mentioned above, which show that the school is a recognised one, we may also refer to a few provisions of the Act which indicate that Respondents No.1 to 17 are fully entitled to there lief claimed by them.

12. Section 2(j) of the Act defines an "existing school" as a recognised private school in existence at the commencement of the Act. Section 2(u) defines a "school" which includes a pre-primary, primary, middle and higher secondary school. Section4(6) of the Act reads as follows:-

"4. Recognition of schools -

(1) to (5) xxx xxx xxx

(6) Every existing school shall be deemed to have been recognised under this section and shall be subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under:

Provided that where any such school does not satisfy any of the conditions specified in the proviso to sub-section (1), the prescribed authority may require the school to satisfy such conditions and such other conditions as may be prescribed, within a specified period and if any such condition is not satisfied, recognition may be withdrawn from such school.

(7) & (8) xxx xxx xxx"

13. The Nursery Wing of the school run by the Appellants was in existence prior to the commencement of the Act. It was also recognised by the concerned authority, namely, the Education Committee/Education Department of the MCD. Keeping these facts in mind, it is clear on a bare reading of the provisions mentioned above that since the school run by the Appellants was an existing recognised school, it was subject to the provisions of the Act which were fully applicable to the school run by the Appellants. This would sufficiently answer the legal question that is raised before us. We, therefore, hold that at the relevant time the Nursery Wing of the school run by the Appellants was duly recognised and subject to the provisions of the Act.

14. Learned counsel for Respondents No.1 to 17 then placed reliance on Section 10 of the Act which reads as follows:-

"10. Salaries of employees - (1) The scales of pay and allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and other prescribed benefits of the employees of a recognised private school shall not be less than those of the employees of the corresponding status in school run by the appropriate authority.

Provided that where the scales of pay and allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and other prescribedbenefits of the employees of any recognised private school are less than those of the employees of the corresponding status in the schools run by the appropriate authority, the appropriate authority shall direct, in writing, the managing committee of such school to bring the same up to the level of those of the employees of the corresponding status in schools run by the appropriate authority:

Provided further that the failure to comply with suchdirection shall be deemed to be non-compliance with the conditions for continuing recognition of an existing school and the provisions of section 4 shall apply accordingly.

(2) The managing committee of every aided school shall deposit, every month, its share towards pay and allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and other prescribed benefits with the Administrator and the Administrator shall disburse, or cause to be disbursed, within the first week of every month, the salaries and allowances to the employees of the aided schools."

15. A plain reading of Section 10 of the Act makes it clear that the employees of a recognised private school shall be entitled to at least the same scale of pay and allowances which are granted to employees of a school having a corresponding status. The facts of the present case fully come with in the four corners of Sections 2(j), 2(u), and 4(6)of the Act as already held by us. The rights of Respondents No.1 to 17 would be clearly governed by Section 10 of the Act. Consequently, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was right in granting the relief prayed for by Respondents No.1 to 17.

16. Under the circumstances, we have no hesitation in rejecting the appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed but with no order as to costs.

17. CM Nos.10 and 11 of 2001 also stand disposed of.