Delhi High Court
Chander Sen & Ors. vs Director Of Education & Ors. on 18 July, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 10191/2009 & CM No. 8683/2009 (Stay)
% 18th July, 2013
CHANDER SEN & ORS. ......Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.K.Kapoor and Ms. Rekha Giri,
Advocates.
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Yogesh Saini, Adv. for Mr. Rajeev
Sharma, Adv. for R-1 & R-2.
Mr. Gaurav Mitroy, Mr. Mohit Chadha and
Ms. Samleen, Advocates for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. In this writ petition, a very limited relief is sought. The limited relief is that
the management of the aided school i.e the respondent no.3, must pay to the
teachers 5% towards the salary and other allowances as is legally payable to
teachers and employees of a school.
2. It is an undisputed position emerging on record that respondent no.3 is an
aided school, i.e 95% of the funds are provided by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi
through the Directorate of Education and 5% funds have to be garnered by the
Management of the school. It is also undisputed before me that the issue in this
case is only of payment of arrears of 5%. I note that this writ petition is pending
since July, 2009. Today we are in July, 2013. I do not find any necessity to
adjourn the matter in view of the limited nature of controversy in this case because
management cannot dispute that it is legally bound to pay 5% of the funds/finances
required for running of the school and which funds are used inter alia for payment
of salaries to teachers and employees of the school.
3. Counsel for respondent no.3 does not press any other issue, though certain
earlier orders passed by this Court reflect the aspect of a memorandum between the
school and parents body. I may note that how the respondent no.3 legally arranges
its funds is not for this Court to look into, however the management surely has a
legal obligation to ensure that it complies with the duty of bringing in 5% and the
same is strictly adhered to by it.
4. Counsel for respondent no.3/school/management, sought to contend before
me that they have entered into a memorandum of settlement with the parent teacher
body to generate the funds and thus this Court can look into the aspect of arranging
of finances. Surely this Court cannot look into any such aspect because the
respondent no.3-school-management has necessarily to act in accordance with law
being the Delhi School Education Act & Rules 1973 by generating the funds and
Court cannot give its stamp of approval to any memorandum which may be entered
into by the respondent no.3/management with anybody for arranging of finances
by the management. Whatever is permissible by the Management in law can be
done. What is impermissible cannot be done.
5. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. It is directed that
respondent no.2 will positively within a period of three months from today bring in
the necessary funds to pay the arrears of salaries to the teachers and employees of
respondent no.3-school as regards the remaining 5% of the amount which is to be
paid to the teachers and employees of the respondent no.3. In case the respondent
no.3 does not bring in 5% of the funds within a period of three months from today,
then, the respondent no.1-Director of Education is directed to take necessary action
in accordance with law, including of taking over of the management of the
respondent no.3-school. Respondent no.1 is directed in case of any dispute with
respect to calculations of arrears, to take necessary steps to inform the
management/respondent no.3 of the amounts which would be payable by the
respondent no.3-school to the teachers and employees of the respondent no.3-
school with respect to the 5% of the balance amount.
6. Interim orders passed by this Court will no longer survive in view of the writ
petition being disposed of today.
JULY 18, 2013/ib VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
