Mrs. Geeta Radha Krishnan And Ors. vs St. Anthony???S Girls Senior ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 3500 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                  W.P.(C) No.6850 /2012

%                                                     7th August, 2013


MRS. GEETA RADHA KRISHNAN AND ORS.        ..... Petitioners
                 Through: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate.


                          versus

ST. ANTHONY'S GIRLS SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL AND ORS.
                                             ..... Respondents

Through: Dr. M.P. Raju, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Abraham M. Pattiyani, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, standing counsel with Ms. Bandana Shukla, Advocate for respondent No.4.

Mr. S.C. Meena, DEO, Zone-27 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. By this writ petition, the petitioners who are teachers in the

respondent No.2-school pray for implementation of the circular dated

11.2.2009 issued by the Director of Education for implementation of the

Sixth Pay Commission Report with respect to teachers and employees of the

schools.

2. The fact that Director of Education has issued a circular dated

11.2.2009 cannot be disputed. I have had occasions to deal with this aspect

in many cases and one such case is the case titled as T.P.Singh Vs. Guru

Harkishan Public School &Ors. in W.P.(C) No. 12132/2009 decided on

14.2.2013 wherein I have held that even a minority school is bound to make

payment as per the circular of the Director of Education dated 11.2.2009.

3. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.2 till

date, although this respondent was served way back for 5.3.2013. Counsel

appearing for respondent No.2 orally pleads before me that the respondent

No.2-school is unrecognized and unaided school and this has been informed

to the petitioners in reply to the legal notice. It is argued that the provisions

of Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 therefore cannot apply to the

respondent No.2-school.

4. The argument as raised on behalf of respondent No.2 is

misconceived for two reasons. Firstly, the Director of Education/respondent

No.4 has filed its counter-affidavit in which it has been mentioned that in

fact respondent No.2-school is a recognized school and recognition was

granted way back by the letter dated 2.6.1979. It is obvious therefore that

deliberately a false stand is being taken up by the respondent No.2 before

this Court. Secondly, in any case, even assuming for the sake of arguments

that the respondent No.2-school is an unaided and unrecognized school, will

not mean that the provisions of Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973

will not apply inasmuch as the issue is no longer res integra in view of the

judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Social Jurist, a

Civil Rights Group Vs. GNCT & Ors. 147 (2008) DLT 729. In this Public

Interest Litigation case, the Division Bench of this Court has specifically

laid down the ratio that the provisions of Delhi School Education Act and

Rules, 1973 will apply even to unrecognized schools which are run in Delhi.

5. In view of the above, writ petition is allowed and respondent

No.2 is directed to make payment to the petitioners of all the benefits of the

Sixth Pay Commission Report and as directed by the Director of Education

vide its circular dated 11.2.2009. If on account of application of the circular

dated 11.2.2009 of the Director of Education, certain consequential

monetary reliefs have also to be paid, the same shall also be paid by the

respondent No.2. Let payments be made to the petitioners by respondent

No.2 within a period of three months from today alongwith interest @ 6%

per annum simple from the date from which the amount became due to the

petitioners till the date the amounts are paid. In case, amounts are not paid

within three months from today thereafter respondent No.2-school will be

liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum simple. Parties are left to bear their

own costs.

6. Considering the fact that respondent No.2 has taken up a

blatantly false stand before this Court of the fact that the school is not

recognized in spite of the fact that recognition has been granted way back

vide letter dated 2.6.1979 of the Director of Education, I deem it fit that

contempt proceedings be initiated against the Managing Committee of the

respondent No.2-school for seeking to overreach the Court by making false

statements. Let the respondent No.2 within a period of one week from today

file the names and addresses of the Members of the Managing Committee so

that contempt notices can be issued by the Registry of this Court, without

process fee, against such Members of the Managing Committee of the

respondent No.2-school. In case, the respondent No.2-school does not file

the details of the Members of the Managing Committee, the respondent

No.4/Director of Education is directed to file within four weeks from today

the details i.e the names and addresses of the Members of the Managing

Committee of the respondent No.2-school and thereafter the Registry,

without process fee, will issue contempt notices to these Members of the

Managing Committee.

7. List with respect to contempt proceedings against Members of

the Managing Committee of the respondent No.2-school on 30th September,

2013.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J AUGUST 07, 2013 Ne