Delhi High Court
Jyoti Bansal And Anr vs Managing Society And Anr on 26 September, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 7127/2012
% 26th September, 2013
JYOTI BANSAL AND ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bakshi, Advocate.
versus
MANAGING SOCIETY AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate for R-
1to 3.
Mr. Kamal Bansal and Mr. Sachin
Chopra, Advocates for R-4 and 5.
Mr. S.C.Meena, DEO Zone-27.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. Petitioners in this petition claim the relief of being granted monetary
benefits which are payable to teachers in government schools. This relief is
claimed as per Section 10(1) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 which
provides that teachers in private schools will at least get such monetary
emoluments which are being given to teachers in government schools.
2. Counter-affidavit of respondent nos. 1 to 3 has been taken in Court
today. A reading of this counter-affidavit does not show as to why the
respondent nos. 1 to 3( the school) should not comply with the provision of
WPC 7127/2012 Page 1 of 3
Section 10(1), and which is a provision which mandates the schools to give
all necessary monetary benefits including pay and allowances, medical
facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund etc etc to teachers of private
schools as are given to teachers in government schools.
3. Though counsel for respondent no.3-school argues paucity of funds to
not comply with the provision of Section 10(1), in my opinion, this is not a
valid defence as I have held in many cases, including the case of Meenu
Thakur Vs. Somer Ville School & Ors. W.P.(C) 8748/2010 decided on
13.2.2013, that paucity of funds is not a ground to not comply with the
requirement of law of payment of monetary benefits to teachers. A Division
Bench of this Court in LPA 286/2010 titled as Rukmani Devi Jaipuria
Public School Vs. Sadhna Payal & Ors. decided on 11.5.2012 has also
held that paucity of funds is not a ground not to make payments of monetary
benefits to teachers.
4. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of by
directing that petitioner nos. 2 to 6 will be granted all benefits in terms of
Section 10(1) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 by respondent no.3-
school. It may be noted that petitioner no.1 has already compromised with
the respondent no.3-school and therefore, no directions are passed so far as
the petitioner no.1 is concerned.
WPC 7127/2012 Page 2 of 3
5. Petitioner nos. 2 to 6 be now paid arrears which are legally payable
within a period of three months from today alongwith interest at 5% per
annum simple from the date from which the amounts become due till the
date of payment. After a period of three months from today, petitioner nos. 2
to 6 will be entitled to interest at 7 ½ % per annum simple on the unpaid
amounts. If there are any disputes as to calculations of arrears, then after
the petitioner nos. 2 to 6 receive amounts from the respondent no.3-school,
petitioner nos. 2 to 6 can point out deficiencies in the amounts paid, and if
still the petitioners are not paid the amounts due as per law, petitioner nos. 2
to 6 will make a representation to the Director of Education who will appoint
a nominee to determine the amounts which are in law payable to petitioner
nos. 2 to 6. The nominee of Director of Education will pass a speaking order
with respect to the disputed amounts after hearing both the parties or their
representatives, and which will be communicated to the petitioner nos. 2 to 6
as also respondent no.3-school.
6. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of the aforesaid
observations, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
SEPTEMBER 26, 2013/ ib VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
