Delhi High Court
Nidhi Suri vs State Of Nct Delhi And Ors on 11 December, 2014
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5668/2012, W.P.(C) 5664/2013,
W.P.(C) 5668/2013 and W.P.(C) 5677/2013
Decided on : 11.12.2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
NIDHI SURI ..... Petitioner
SUSHMA KAMRA ..... Petitioner
SWARAN KUMARI ..... Petitioner
INDU BALA ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms. Vinny Shangloo, proxy counsel for
Mr. Harish Katyal, Advocate with
Ms. Nidhi Suri in person.
versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Avnish Ahlawat and
Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Advocate for R-1 & 2
with DEO-Dr. Mallikarjun K.S.
in W.P.(C) 5668/2012.
Ms. Nitika Khetrapal, proxy counsel for
Ms. Nidhi Raman, Advocate for R-1 & 2
in W.P.(C) 5664/2013.
Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocate for R-1 & 2 in
W.P.(C) 5668/2013.
Ms. Bandana Shukla, proxy counsel for
Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Adv. for R-1 & 2
in W.P.(C) 5677/2013.
Mr. Rajesh Bhatia, Advocate for R-3/School.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral)
1. On the last date of hearing, counsel for the petitioners had stated
that the respondent No.3/School had not released the salary of the
petitioner in W.P.(C) 5668/2012 for the months of May and June, 2012.
2. As counsel for the respondent No.3/School had submitted that he
was not in a position to respond immediately, but he had assured the
Court that if the salary payable to the petitioners for the aforesaid period
has remained outstanding, the same would be paid with interest @ 9%
per annum on the principal amount within two weeks, the matter was
renotified for today.
3. Today, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/School submits
that the salary of the petitioner in WP(C)No.5668/2012 for the month of
May & June, 2012 has been paid with interest @ 9% per annum in the
month of October, 2014, which fact is confirmed by learned counsel for
the petitioners, on instructions.
4. The remaining grievance of the petitioners is with regard to failure
on the part of the respondent No.3/School in implementing the
recommendations of the Fifth & Sixth Pay Commissions and further, for
directing the respondent No.2/Department of Education to take action
against the respondent No.3/School under Section 10 of the Delhi School
Education Act & Rules, 1973 on account of the corrupt practices
allegedly adopted by the School, including the practice of taking back
50% of their salary from the teachers.
5. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 &
2/DOE states that inspection of the respondent No.3/School's accounts
was conducted in the School premises in the month of October, 2014
and now the School has been directed to present its books of account
before the DOE/his nominee on 18.12.2014 for further scrutiny. She
submits that the claim of the respondent No.3/School that it is facing
financial crunch, has yet to be ascertained and further steps are required
to be undertaken by the DOE in that regard.
6. Having regard to the submission made by the counsel for the
respondents No.1 & 2/DOE that a notice to show cause was issued to the
respondent No.3/School as long back as on 1.10.2012, it is deemed
appropriate to direct the DOE to take the said show cause notice to its
logical conclusion by taking a decision on or before 28.2.2015, under
written intimation to all the concerned parties.
7. As it is an admitted position that the respondent No.3/School has
failed to release the statutory dues of the teachers as per the
recommendations of the Fifth & Sixth Pay Commissions and the next
academic year 2015-2016 shall commence very soon for which purpose,
students are likely to be admitted in the month of January, 2015, in the
interest of justice, it is deemed appropriate to direct the respondent
No.3/School not to take any steps to admit new students for the next
academic year, unless and until the DOE gives it a clean chit in respect
of the irregularities, subject matter of the notice to show cause dated
01.10.2012.
8. With the aforesaid orders, the present petitions are disposed of.
Needless to state that in case either of the parties is aggrieved by the
decision taken by the DOE, they shall be entitled to seek their remedies
in accordance with law.
(HIMA KOHLI)
DECEMBER 11, 2014 JUDGE
sk/rkb
