Delhi High Court
Lalita Bhatia & Ors. vs The G.M.Northern Railways & Anr. on 22 July, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 22nd July, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 455/2009
% LALITA BHATIA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Jitender Singhwith Ms.
Priyanka Singh, Advocates
Versus
THE G.M.NORTHERN RAILWAYS & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Neeraj Attri, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Joydeep Mazumdar, Advocate
for R-2.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Not necessary
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Not necessary
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The nine petitioners seek mandamus for re-opening of Shishu
Shiksha Prathmik Vidhyalaya being run by the respondent no.2 Northern
Railways Women Welfare Organization, stated to be under the control of
the respondent no.1. The petitioners claim that they were employed with
the said Vidhyalaya and the Vidhyalaya was closed down all of a sudden
on 1st April, 2008 without notice and affecting not only the petitioners but
the children at large of the area. The petitioners claim to have been in
employment of the Vidhyalaya as teachers for the last 32 to 35 years and
claim that with its closure they have been rendered workless.
2. Notice of the petition was issued. Counter affidavit has been filed by
the respondent no.2 pleading has been stated that the respondent no.2 is a
Society for the welfare of children of the Railways' employees; that the
members of the Society are the wives and daughters of senior officers of
Northern Railways; that the said Society is not an adjunct body of
Northern Railways; that the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis
for one academic session only and under the terms of their appointment
were not entitled to any regular employment and their services could be
dispensed with one month's notice. It is further pleaded that the funds of
the respondent no.2 come from holding charity events and there is no
permanent income of the respondent no.2 Society. On enquiry, the counsel
for the respondent no.2 states that no funds are received from the
Railways.
3. Qua the decision to close down the Vidhyalaya aforesaid, it is stated
that the said Vidhyalaya was not a recognized school and the students
passing out therefrom were suffering as they were not able to obtain
admission in any recognized school; that the curricula of the said
Vidhyalaya was also not as per the Guidelines of CBSE and as such it was
decided to close the same. It is further pleaded that most of the petitioners
are wives of Railway employees and were in fact being paid only a
nominal amount and were working in the Vidhyalaya and their activities in
the Vidhyalaya were as a social work.
4. It is also denied that the proper notice of intended action of closure
of Vidhyalaya was not served. It is stated that three months prior to the
closure with the end of the academic session, all concerned were notified.
5. The respondent no.2 along with counter affidavit filed its Certificate
of Incorporation and Rules & Regulations as well as terms of appointment
of the petitioners and the notice issued of closure.
6. The respondent no.1 Railways has filed CM No.8388/2011 under
Order I Rule 10 of the CPC for deletion of its name from the array of
respondents stating that it has no concern or control over the functioning of
the respondent no.2 Vidhyalaya.
7. The petitioners have filed an additional affidavit controverting the
contents of the counter affidavit. It is further stated that the respondent
no.2 Society is also running a canteen at Central Rail Hospital at
Pachkuiyan Road, New Delhi, a Beauty Parlour and a Knitting Centre at
Paharganj, New Delhi and a Creche at Baroda House, New Delhi in the
premises of the respondent no.1 which is also paying the electricity bills of
the said premises.
8. On the basis of the documents filed along with the counter affidavit
of the respondent no.2, disclosing the respondent no.2 to be a Society
governed by its Rules & Regulations and Bye-Laws and which do not
show the respondent no.1 Railways to have any control over the affairs on
the respondent no.2, the writ petition cannot be said to be maintainable
against the respondent no.2 Society. The petitioners have been unable to
show any duty owed by the respondent no.2 Society to continue with the
Vidhyalaya. The petitioners have not claimed any relief in the petition qua
the illegality if any in the termination of their employment and/or
arrangement by the respondent no.2 Society.
9. There is thus no merit in the petition; the same is dismissed. No
order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
JULY 22, 2011
pp/bs
(corrected and released on 9th August, 2011)
