Managing Commitee Of Mukherjee ... vs Sh. P.C.Arora & Ors.
2008 Latest Caselaw 1849 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       RFA 14/1999


      Managing Committee of Mukherjee
      Memorial Senior Secondary School,
      through its Manager & Anr.        ..... Appellants
                  Through:   Mr.S.N.Gupta, Adv.

                              versus

      Shri P.C.Arora & Ors.                   ...... Respondents
                  Through:    Ms.Shikha Tandon, Adv.


                              RESERVED ON:
                               26.09.2008


                              DATE OF DECISION:
%                              20.10.2008

Coram:
*   Hon'ble Mr.Justice Pradeep Nandrajog
    Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.R. Midha


1.    Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
      to see the judgment?

2.    To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.    Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. The Managing Committee of Mukherjee Memorial Senior

Secondary School has challenged the judgment and decree dated

12.2.1998 passed by Mr.V.P.Vaish, ADJ, Delhi. Suit filed by

Mr.P.C.Arora has been decreed in sum of Rs.52,510.40 together with

interest @6% per annum from the date when suit was filed till

realization.

2. Mukherjee Memorial Senior Secondary School is an

aided recognized school and receives 95% of its recurring expenses

as aid from the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of

Delhi.

3. The executive head of the school is the Principal. In the

year 1979, the post of the Principal fell vacant and pending process

of regular selection, one Mr.M.R.Mittal (PGT) was appointed as the

Principal on officiating basis. He continued till 1983 and was

replaced by Mr.V.K.Sharma (PGT) as the Officiating Principal who

resigned in January 1984. Mr.P.C.Arora (PGT) took charge as the

Officiating Principal on 1.2.1984. He functioned as an Officiating

Principal till May 1987. Summer vacations ensued in June 1987.

The academic session had to recommence around 12th July 1987.

During summer recess, the Managing Committee resolved to

remove Mr.P.C.Arora as the Officiating Principal and re-appoint

Mr.M.R.Mittal.

4. Mr.P.C.Arora was on leave till 13.8.1987 and on return to

the school was not permitted to function as the Officiating Principal.

He wrote a letter to the Directorate of Education a few days prior to

his re-joining the school and in response thereto, vide Ex.PW-4/119,

on 11.8.1987, the Directorate of Education informed the

management of the school that Mr.P.C.Arora should be permitted to

function as the Officiating Principal. He was not allowed to do so in

spite of letter dated 17.8.1987, Ex.PW-4/120; letter dated 3.9.1987,

Ex.PW-4/121; letter dated 29.10.1987, Ex.PW-4/122; letter dated

30.10.1987, Ex.PW-4/123; letter dated 1.12.1987, Ex.PW-4/124;

letter dated 23.4.1988, Ex.PW-4/125 and letter dated 15.4.1988,

Ex.PW-4/126, all written by the Directorate of Education reaffirming

that Mr.P.C.Arora be permitted to function as the Officiating

Principal. The stalemate continued till Mr.P.C.Arora started

functioning and discharging duties on 1.8.1988.

5. Claim in the suit was for the salary commencing from

13.7.1987 till 1.8.1988 which Mr.P.C.Arora claimed was not paid to

him. He also claimed allowance payable to the person who officiates

as a Principal. Defence was that Mr.P.C.Arora did not join the school

to work as a PGT and hence was not entitled to any salary.

6. In view of letter dated 17.8.1987, Ex.PW-4/120; letter

dated 3.9.1987, Ex.PW-4/121; letter dated 29.10.1987, Ex.PW-4/122;

letter dated 30.10.1987, Ex.PW-4/123; letter dated 1.12.1987,

Ex.PW-4/124; letter dated 23.4.1988, Ex.PW-4/125 and letter dated

15.4.1988, Ex.PW-4/126 the suit has succeeded. The finding

returned by the learned Trial Judge is that the management of the

school was not justified in ignoring the directives issued by the

Directorate of Education and Mr.P.C.Arora was justified in saying

that the management could not deny to him the right to work as the

Officiating Principal.

7. On the quantum of the suit amount, suffice would it be

to state that the quantification of the sum was not in dispute,

meaning thereby, if it was held that the management of the school

was not justified in removing Mr.P.C.Arora from the post of

Officiating Principal, the suit has to succeed.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant made only one

submission at the hearing of the appeal. The same relate to Ex.PW-

4/129. The same is a communication dated 27.7.1988 addressed by

the Deputy Director of Education to the Manager of the school

writing as under:-

"Sub : In reference case of Sh.P.C.Arora - filling up the post of Principal of the School - consideration thereof.

Sir,

I am directed to refer to your various correspondence on the subject and to state that the matter concerning Sh.P.C.Arora and filling up the post of Principal in the School has been considered and discussed in the meeting held at the Directorate, wherein the relevant officers of the Directorate of Education were present. All aspects in view of the various correspondence made in this behalf by the Managing Committee of the School and the Directorate of Education and reference representation of Sh.P.C.Arora and other facts on record regarding filling up the post of Principal of the School were considered, it has been decided that;

1. Sh.P.C.Arora may be directed immediately to perform his duty in the school, in case he has failed to do so, till now.

2. His claim for the post of Principal can be considered by the Selection Committee as per his eligibility in accordance with the recruitment rules and other facts in view.

3. The D.P.C. so constituted and nominee of the Director of Education in reference provision of Rule 96(3) of the rules may proceed further to select eligible incumbent as Principal of the school.

4. The claim of Shri Arora to function as Officiating Principal and not to function and perform duty as P.G.T. and in contrary to that submitting his attendance report, if any, in the office of the Education Officer or District East is administratively not agreeable and valid to earn his salary for the period he failed to perform his duty practically and feasibly.

In view of these circumstances, you are requested to please immediately take up the matter and ensure that Sh. Arora is to function as P.G.T. in the school and he should not remain absent from the performance of his duty in the school and side by side the post of Principal be filled up at the earliest, latest by Ist week of August, 1988 positively.

This may kindly be treated as most urgent and a compliance report may be sent to this effect by Ist Week of August, 1988 so that the same may be placed before the Director of Education."

9. Mr.S.N.Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant urged

that the learned Trial Judge has ignored Ex.PW-4/129. It was urged

that vide decision No.4 conveyed to the school, Mr.P.C.Arora was

not entitled to any wages.

10. Decision No.4 conveyed to the school vide Ex.PW-4/129

reads as under:-

"4. The claim of Shri Arora to function as Officiating Principal and not to function and perform duty as P.G.T. and in contrary to that submitting his attendance report, if any, in the office of the Education Officer or District East is administratively not agreeable and valid to earn his salary for the period he failed to perform his duty practically and feasibly."

11. To appreciate Ex.PW-4/129, the letters written by the

Directorate of Education to the school being Ex.PW-4/119 to Ex.PW-

4/125 need to be noted. But, before that, the basic bone of

contention between the parties leading to the dispute also needs to

be considered.

12. It is not in dispute that Mr.P.C.Arora was a senior PGT

and when Mr.M.R.Mittal followed by Mr.V.K.Sharma resigned as

officiating principals, Mr.P.C.Arora was appointed as the Officiating

Principal. Unfortunately, the school took no steps to fill up the post

of Principal on regular basis. For reasons which have not come on

record, the Management decided, during summer vacations of

1987, to remove Mr.P.C.Arora as the Officiating Principal and re-

appoint Mr.M.R.Mittal as the Officiating Principal.

13. The school being a recognized aided school was

obviously governed by Delhi School Education Act 1973 and the

rules framed there-under and vide Rule 96, the selection of a person

to function as the Principal of the School had to be by a properly

constituted Managing Committee having representatives of the

Director of Education therein. It appears that Mr.P.C.Arora had a

grievance to the constitution of the committee which removed him

as the Officiating Principal. Unfortunately, there is no evidence on

record as to what was the taint in the constitution of the committee.

However, on 11.8.1987, vide Ex.PW-4/119, the Directorate of

Education informed the Manager of the School, that Mr.P.C.Arora

should be permitted to continue to function as the Officiating

Principal. The letter reads as under:-

"Sub: Approval for the claim of Shri P.C.Arora to continue as Officiating Principal.

Sir,

With reference to the representation of Shri P.C.Arora on the subject cited above, I am directed to inform you that Director of Education has been pleased to accord approval that Shri P.C.Arora will continue as Officiating Principal of your school till a regular Principal is appointed.

It is imperative that the school management should appoint a permanent Principal immediately as per RRs framed for this purpose."

14. One would have expected the Management of the

School to have abided by the directive contained in Ex.PW-4/119 for

the reason the school receives grant-in-aid from the Directorate of

Education and even otherwise is obliged to obey the directives

issued by the Directorate of Education. It need hardly be re-

emphasized that the Directorate of Education is the Nodal Authority

under the Delhi School Education Act 1973 to ensure that the

provisions of the Act and the rules framed there-under are complied

with. If the Management of a School is aggrieved by any directive

issued by the Directorate of Education, the School has to challenge

the same and on success alone can it not comply with the directive.

If management of a school is permitted to decide whether the

directives issued are legal or not, we are afraid, a chaotic situation

would arise in the Union Territory of Delhi, for the reason, there

would be no sanctity to the directives issued by the Directorate of

Education.

15. On 17.8.1987, 3.9.1987, 29.10.1987, 30.10.1987,

1.12.1987 and 23.4.1988, vide Ex.PW-4/120 to Ex.PW-4/125 the

Directorate of Education continued to impress upon the

Management of the School to permit Mr.P.C.Arora to function as the

Officiating Principal. The last letter, Ex.PW-4/125 reads as under:-

"Sub: Release of salary due since 14.8.1987 in respect of Sh.P.C.Arora.

Sir,

It has been desired by the Director of Education that the salary in respect of Sh.P.C.Arora may be released immediately and a compliance report be sent to the undersigned within 3 days from the date of receipt of this letter."

16. It is, thus, obvious that the Directorate of Education

continued to impress upon the Management of the School to release

the salary of Mr.P.C.Arora and permit him to join as the Officiating

Principal.

17. What was Mr.P.C.Arora doing in the meanwhile? He

made attempts to join the school, and since the management did

not permit him to join he wrote a letter virtually every third day to

the Directorate of Education requesting that the Director of

Education should ensure that he i.e. P.C.Arora be permitted to join

and function as the Officiating Principal. These letters have been

proved as Ex.PW-4/1 to Ex.PW-4/118.

18. PW-4 is none other than the head-clerk of the

Directorate of Education who proved all documents proved as

Ex.PW-4/1 to Ex.PW-4/130.

19. Ex.PW-4/129 thus needs to be considered, as noted

herein above, in the light of the other documentary evidence.

20. Till the Directorate of Education wrote Ex.PW-4/125 on

23.4.1988, we find the consistent stand of the Director of Education

directing the school to release the salary of Mr.P.C.Arora and permit

him to join as the Officiating Principal in the school.

21. For unexplainable reasons, the Director of Education

took a U-turn when he wrote Ex.PW-4/129 and vide decision No.4

conveyed that Mr.P.C.Arora would not be entitled to any salary for

the period from 13.7.1987 to 1.8.1988.

22. What is the factual foundation of the said decision? The

letter does not bring out the same.

23. Now, an employee can be denied wages on the principle

of no work no pay. But, the same has to be on blame being on the

shoulders of the employee. Surely, the management cannot say

that it will not permit an employee to work and then claim that

since the employee has not worked he is not entitled to the wages.

24. Ex.PW-4/1 to Ex.PW-4/118 show that Mr.P.C.Arora wrote

a letter virtually every second day, making a grievance that the

management of the school was not permitted him to join as the

Officiating Principal. The Directorate of Education also took a

consistent stand and repeatedly impressed upon the management

to permit Mr.P.C.Arora to join as the Officiating Principal. In view of

the overwhelming documentary evidence, we fail to understand as

to how directive No.4 in Ex.PW-4/129 can be justified.

25. Indeed, Mr.S.N.Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant

failed to give any satisfactory answer when questioned as to why

the management of the school ignored the directives issued by the

Director of Education. Learned counsel made a feeble attempt to

urge that the said directives were contrary to law. Counsel urged

that the senior-most PGT was entitled to function as an Officiating

Principal and that Mr.P.C.Arora was not the senior-most PGT.

26. We have 2 reasons to reject the contention urged by

learned counsel for the appellant. Firstly, Mr.M.R.Mittal and

Mr.V.K.Sharma, the persons who were senior as PGT to Mr.P.C.Arora

were offered the post of Officiating Principal. They accepted the

same and thereafter resigned. Thus, Mr.P.C.Arora, being the third in

line of succession was rightly appointed as the Officiating Principal.

Our second reason, which we express as a more powerful reason, is

that the management of the school could not have ignored the

directives issued by the Directorate of Education as per Ex.PW-

4/119 to Ex.PW-4/125. Admittedly, the Management of the School

did not challenge the said directives. Thus, the Management has to

bear the consequences of not permitting Mr.P.C.Arora to function as

the Officiating Principal.

27. It is not in dispute that the sum decreed represents the

wages payable to Mr.P.C.Arora as also the allowance payable to a

person who officiates as the Principal.

28. Noting that the decretal amount stands paid to

Mr.P.C.Arora, we find no merits in the appeal.

29. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

30. Surety furnished by Mr.P.C.Arora when he received the

decretal amount stand discharged.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

J.R. MIDHA, J.

October 20, 2008 dk