Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. vs Dr. Ramesh Paramhans
2006 Latest Caselaw 611 Del

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

Page 1552

1. The plaintiff / UOI has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.27,22,844/- with interest against the defendants.

2. The dispute relates to the take over of Management of the School run by the defendant so society under the name Hardev Co-Ed Middle School, Hardev Puri, Shahdara, Delhi. The School was governed by the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act' ) and was a private unaided school. In terms of the power vested under Section 20 of the said Act, the Management of the School can be taken over if the affairs are not being managed in a proper manner.

3. The disputes arose between the Managing Committee of the School and the Society and an inspection of the School was conducted on 17.02.1995. Since the affairs were not found to be satisfactory, a decision was taken under Section 20 of the said Act on 09.08.1995 to take over the Management of the School and Shri P.C. Gupta was appointed as the Authorised Officer by the Lieutenant Governor. The running of the affairs of the School were handed over to Mr. Gupta on 06.09.1995.

4. The defendant aggrieved by the same filed an appeal before the Lieutenant Governor and in terms of the Order dated 11.03.1998, the Society was directed to constitute a new Managing Committee by adopting the due Page 1553 procedure. The new Managing Committee was constituted by the order dated 08.05.1998 and the Management was restored to the new Managing Committee. The final order was passed by the Lieutenant Governor on 13.05.1998 and the Management was handed over on the said date.

5. It is stated in the plaint that at the time of take over of the School, the Management was paying a nominal salary of Rs.600/- per month to the teachers. In terms of the provisions of Section 20(6) of the said Act, it is stated that no aid was required to be provided to the School of which the Management was taken over and the funds had to be provided by the Society. However, the funds were not available with the Society.

6. Fifteen teachers of the School filed a writ petition bearing CWP No. 4777/1996 against the plaintiff herein claiming full salary from the period commencing from 01.04.1995 as per prescribed scales and this petition was allowed vide Order dated 17.12.1997 holding that the Administrator was responsible to pay the salary of the employees during the period of take over. The Letters Patent Appeal No. 42/1998 filed by the plaintiff against the said Order dated 17.12.1997 was disposed of by the Order dated 02.03.1998 upholding the said judgment, but observing that the plaintiff would have a right in law to recover the amount from the Management or receive it from the Government of India. In pursuance to the Orders passed by the Court, these teachers are stated to have been paid a sum amounting to Rs.27,22,844/- being the suit amount with the bifurcations given as per paras 20 to 22 of the plaint. It is this amount which the plaintiff seeks to recover with interest.

7. The defendant entered appearance and took time to file the written statement but failed to do so thereafter and was proceeded ex-parte on 09.11.2005.

8. The plaintiff has filed in Court today the affidavit of Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Deputy Director of the Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. It may be noticed that the affidavit of evidence was not being filed despite opportunity granted as far back as on 09.11.2005 and, thus, on 22.02.2006 subject to costs, last opportunity was granted to file the affidavit within two weeks. The affidavit was still not filed nor the costs of Rs.2,000/- was deposited as per the Order dated 22.02.2006. Despite this position, learned Counsel for the plaintiff requested that the affidavit being filed in Court be taken on record and the Officer of the plaintiff / UOI be put to terms for non- compliance of the Orders of this Court for filing affidavits. It is in view thereof I have permitted the affidavit to be placed on record, but subject to further costs of Rs.3,000/- to be recovered from the Officer responsible for not filing the affidavit within time. Both these costs have to be deposited with Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Cesxwntre in UCO Bank Account No. 48852 within a period of one week from today and it is made clear that any decree to be passed by this Court will not be enforceable till such time as the costs are deposited within the stipulated period of one week with a certificate of recovery from the Officer concerned.

9. The affidavit of evidence has set out the facts as averred in the plaint and has proved the documents. Exhibit P-4 is the Order dated 09.08.2005 Page 1554 for take over of the Management of the School and the Order of the Lieutenant Governor dated 13.01.1997 has been proved as Exhibit P-5. The Order dated 13.05.1998 of the Lieutenant Governor finally disposing of the matter and directing the new Management to take over as also the take over of the Management on 18.05.1998 have been proved as Exhibit P-8 and Exhibit P-9 respectively. It may be noted that some of the original documents have been filed on record while copies of the other documents have been placed on record and the original documents have been produced in court since they form part of the records of the plaintiff.

10. The suit amount has again been reaffirmed in paras 24 and 26 of the affidavit and the salary bill certificate has been proved as Exhibit P-14. A chart for payment of the amounts have also been proved as Exhibit P-16. The allegations made therein are unrebutted. The plaintiff also sent legal notices to the defendants (Exhibit P-20 and Exhibit P-23). The defendants either did not reply or took the stand that it was not their liability. It appears that there are persistent disputes between the Management still continuing.

11. The only question, thus, to be considered is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the suit amount in view of the allegations made in the plaint and the affidavit which remained unrebutted.

12. The judgment of the Division Bench dated 02.03.1998 (Exhibit P-11) shows that the plaintiff was held liable to make the payment for salaries of the teachers during the period of take over of the School Management and it was left to the plaintiff to recover the amounts from the Management, if in law, they are so entitled. The contention of learned Counsel for the plaintiff is that the School in question not being aided an school, there is no liability of the plaintiff to make payments on behalf of the Management. The take over occurred only as a reason of failure of the School to be run efficiently primarily arising from the disputes between the Managing Trustees and the Members.

13. It cannot be doubted that if the take over had not taken place, the liability to pay salary would have continued to vest with the Managing Committee. The take over was insisted on account of inter se fights between the Managing Committee Members and the Managing Trustees resulting in a situation where for the benefit of the students and the effective Management of the School, the Management was taken over. The Management was handed back once the Managing Committee was reconstituted in accordance with law. Since the plaintiff was running the School during this period of time and the funds were not available, the plaintiff paid the amount towards salary of the teachers. The defendant has not appeared and has not been able to point out as to why the plaintiff should not be held entitled to the recovery of this amount, which is really an amount spent on behalf of the Society during the period when the plaintiff has been running the school.

14. The plaintiff has proved the amounts remitted to the teachers during this period of time as the testimony has remained unrebutted.

15. The only other question is of interest. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it appropriate to award interest @ 6% p.a. simple interest.

Page 1555

16. A decree is passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of Rs.27,22,844/- along with simple interest @ 6% p.a. from 31.05.2002 (the date of filing of the suit) till the date of realisation. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs.

17. Decree-sheet be drawn up accordingly after the plaintiff complies with the directions contained in para 7 of the judgment.