Delhi High Court
Shri Braham Singh & Ors. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 6 May, 2009
Author: V.K.Shali
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No.7790/2009
Date of Decision : 06.5.2009
SHRI BRAHAM SINGH & ORS. ......Petitioners
Through :Mr.U.S.Chaudhary,
Advocate.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ...... Respondent
Through : Ms.Purbali Bora for
Ms.Aruna Tiku, Advocate.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? NO
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? NO
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
1. This writ petition filed by the petitioner in which the main
prayer of the petitioner is to pay the full salary for the period
from 9th August, 1995 to 12th May, 1998 on the ground that the
Management of the respondent/School had been taken over that
under Section 20 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as Act) by the Directorate of Education.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners
who are six in number are claiming themselves to be the
employees of M/s Hardev Co-Education Middle School, Hardev
Puri, Delhi which is recognized by the Directorate of Education
under the Delhi School Education Act (hereinafter referred to as
the Act). It is alleged that the Management of the aforesaid
school was taken over under Section 20 of the Act by the
Directorate of Education vide orders dated 09.8.1995 on the
ground that the Managing Committee of the school was
mismanaging the school. It is alleged that the present petitioners
and employees had filed a writ petition bearing No.4777/1996
titled as Braham Singh & Ors. Vs. Administrator & Ors. directing
the respondents to pay the full emoluments as were admissible
to them in compliance to Section 10 of the Act. The said writ
petition is stated to have been allowed by this Court on
17.12.1997 directing the respondents to pay full salary to the
petitioner.
3. The order dated 17.12.1997 which was passed by the
learned Single Judge was in the following terms:-
"CM 5994/1997 in CW 4777/96
As per the judgment of Division Bench of
this Court in the case of B.L.Verma and
Os. Vs. Lt. Governor and Ors. Bearing
C.W No.327/78 decided on 7th August,
1979, it is the Administrator who has
taken over the school, thus respondent
No.1 and 2 are responsible to pay the
salary of the employees. Therefore,
directions are accordingly given to the
respondent No.1 and 2 to consider the
case of payment of salary to the
petitioners within two weeks from today,
pursuance to the judgment of Division
Bench in CW 327/78.
Petition stands disposed Dasti."
Sd/-
Usha Mehra J."
4. So far as petitioner no.6 is concerned, he is stated to have
filed a similar petition bearing WP(C) No.3640/1998 which was
disposed of on the same lines on which the earlier writ petition
was disposed of. This order was passed on 10.12.1999.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that though the entire salary for the period when the
Management of the school was paid to them. However, they
were paid only at the initial of the pay scale admissible to such
employees without taking into consideration the past services
and the past basic pay which the petitioner employees were
drawing with the respondent /school.
6. Another development had taken place in between
inasmsuch as the aforesaid orders of the Court were not
complied with and a contempt petition bearing CCP No.137/1998
was filed for ensuring compliance of the orders of the learned
Single Judge. Though during the pendency of the contempt
petition some payment was purported to have been made to the
petitioner /employees but their grievance persists that the
complete arrears and pay allowances have not been paid to them.
The learned Single Judge while disposing of the contempt
petition observed that if the petitioners are entitled to certain
additional benefits, the same could not be given to the petitioner
/employees in the contempt petition for which they will have to
file a substantive separate petition or take such appropriate
proceedings in accordance with law as may be permissible.
7. With these directions, the contempt petition was also
disposed of on 9th March, 2004.
8. Now the petitioner have woken up after expiry of five years
from the date of disposal of the contempt petition again filed the
present writ petition claiming those arrears of pay and
allowances which they claimed are still due and payable to them
in terms of the orders of the learned Single Judge. The period
has been specified as 09.8.1995 to 12.5.1998 for which these
arrears of pay and allowances are stated to be admissible to
them.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Although there is no period of limitation prescribed for the
purpose of filling of the writ petition but the Apex Court in case
titled State of M.P. Vs. Bhailal Bhai AIR 1964 SC 1006 has
very categorically laid down that normally speaking the period
which is prescribed under the Limitation Act should be sufficient
enough to file a writ petition though this period can be even less
in a given case.
10. The present writ petition is in fact claiming arrears of pay
and allowances. According to the Limitation Act, the maximum
period within which the arrears of money due and payable or suit
for recovery of any money can be filed is within three years from
the date of accrual of the cause of action. Even if the cause of
action is not reckoned from 12.5.1998 but from the date of
disposal of the contempt petition, which is 9th March, 2004 the
present writ petition which is inordinately delayed and hit by
laches because it is filed after expiry of three years. The
petitioners are trying to rake up not only a stale claim but also
the disputed question of fact.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, I feel that the writ petition totally
mis-conceived as it is hit by inordinate delay and laches apart
from raising the disputed questions of fact. The writ petition is
dismissed.
No order as to costs.
V.K. SHALI, J.
MAY 06, 2009
RN
