The Managing Committee & Ors vs Mr Rakesh Kumar Shukla
2014 Latest Caselaw 619 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                      RSA No. 284/2013 & conn.
%                                       31st January, 2014
+      RSA 284/2013

THE MANAGING COMMITTEE & ORS                       ..... Appellants

                       Through:   Mr. R.M.Sinha, Advocate.

                       versus

MR RAKESH KUMAR SHUKLA                             ..... Respondent

Through: None.

+      RSA 267/2013

THE MANAGING COMMITTEE & ORS                       ..... Appellants

                       Through:   Mr. R.M.Sinha, Advocate.

                       versus

MS. SUMAN HANDA                                    ..... Respondent

                       Through

+      RSA 275/2013

THE MANAGING COMMITTEE & ORS                       ..... Appellants

                       Through:   Mr. R.M.Sinha, Advocate.

                       versus

MR. SULEMAN KHAN                                   ..... Respondent

                       Through



 +      RSA 276/2013

THE MANAGING COMMITTEE & ORS                       ..... Appellants

                       Through:   Mr. R.M.Sinha, Advocate.

                       versus

MR. NARESH KHURANA                                 ..... Respondent

                       Through

+      RSA 277/2013

THE MANAGING COMMITTEE & ORS                       ..... Appellants

                       Through:   Mr. R.M.Sinha, Advocate.

                       versus

MS KIRAN VATI                                ..... Respondent

                       Through

+      RSA 278/2013

THE MANAGING COMMITTEE & ORS                       ..... Appellants

                       Through:   Mr. R.M.Sinha, Advocate.

                       versus

MRS. SHIKHA SAXENA                                 ..... Respondent

                       Through



+      RSA 280/2013

THE MANAGING COMMITTEE & ORS                       ..... Appellants

                        Through:   Mr. R.M.Sinha, Advocate.

                       versus

MR. SHAILENDER BHARDWAJ                            ..... Respondent

                       Through

+      RSA 281/2013

THE MANAGING COMMITTEE & ORS                       ..... Appellants

                       Through:   Mr. R.M.Sinha, Advocate.

                       versus

MS. USHA MAHAJAN                                   ..... Respondent

                       Through

+      RSA 282/2013

THE MANAGING COMMITTEE & ORS                       ..... Appellants

                       Through:   Mr. R.M.Sinha, Advocate.

                       versus

MRS. SHIPRA                                        ..... Respondent

                       Through



+      RSA 283/2013

THE MANAGING COMMITTEE & ORS                       ..... Appellants

                       Through:   Mr. R.M.Sinha, Advocate.

                       versus

 MRS. SUMAN GAUTAM                                         ..... Respondent

                         Through

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. These regular second appeals have been filed by the school impugning

the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated

14.9.2012 and the appellate court dated 16.11.2013; by which suits of the

respondents-plaintiffs have been decreed and the appellant-school has been

directed to pay the enhanced amount/difference of arrears as per 6th Pay

Commission Report and certain arrears of salary. Each of the suits has been

decreed for a specific amount against the appellant-school.

2. Three aspects are necessary to be stated before I advert to the

arguments urged on behalf of the appellant-school. First is that with respect

to the schools in Delhi undoubtedly, there is an order of Director of

Education dated 11.2.2009 by which schools have been directed to pay its

employees including teachers' salaries as per the increase granted by the 6 th

Pay Commission Report. The second aspect to be noted is that the salary of

a teacher in a private school cannot be less than the salary of a teacher as

payable in a government school as per Section 10 of the Delhi School

Education Act, 1973. Third aspect is that this Court has passed judgments in

various cases that lack of finances available to a school is not a ground for

non-payment of enhanced salaries and that schools are not entitled to

contend that unless enhanced fees are recovered from the students, the pay

increases to the teachers in terms of the order of the Director of Education

dated 11.2.2009 will not be paid.

3. On the aspect that the teachers of a private school have to get the same

salary and emoluments as that of a teacher in a government school, this has

been so held by this Court in the judgments of Nutan Gulati Vs. Direction

of Education in W.P. (C) No.109/2013 decided on 9.7.2013, Latha M.

Palat Vs. Director of Education, 2013 (205) DLT 685 and V.S. Rahi Vs. Lt.

Governor, 1994 (56) DLT 698 (DB).

4. In the cases of Meenu Thakur Vs. Somer Ville School & Ors in

W.P.(C) 8748/2010 decided on 13.2.2013; Jyotibansal & Anr. Vs.

Managing Society & Anr. in W.P.(C) 7127/2012 decided on 26.9.2013;

Joice Johnson Vs. Director, Directorate of Education & Anr. in W.P.(C)

17195/2004 decided on 10.9.2013; Meenu Saxena & Ors. Vs. Arya Vidya

Mandir & Ors. in W.P.(C) 7014/2012 decided on 19.7.2013 and in an order

dated 29.10.2013 in Sangeeta Singh & Ors. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi &

Ors. in W.P.(C) 6804/2013, I have held that lack of finances with the school

is not a ground for not making enhanced payment in terms of the circular of

the Director of Education dated 11.2.2009.

5. I have also held in the case of Deepika Jain Vs. Rukmini Devi Public

School & Ors. in W.P.(C) 237/2013 decided on 23.9.2013 that it is not

necessary that first there must be enhancement of fees and recovery of the

same from the students before making payment as per the circular of the

Director of Education, and schools have to make payment from the existing

funds and the existing reserves which have to be used to meet any shortfall

in payment of salaries and allowances etc of employees and that enhanced

salaries cannot be denied to teachers and employees of a school till

recoveries are made from students after a tuition fee hike.

6. In regard to the lack of substance in the stand of the school that only

after enhancement of fees and recovery of the same from the students the

circular dated 11.2.2009 has to be complied, paras 1 to 3 of the order of the

Director of Education dated 11.2.2009 are relevant and the same read as

under:

"1. A fee hike is not mandatory for recognized unaided schools in the NCT of Delhi.

2. All schools must first of all, explore the possibility of utilizing the existing reserves to meet any shortfall in payment of salaries and allowances, as a consequence of increase in the salaries and allowances of employees.

3. If any school still feels it necessary to hike the Tuition Fee, it shall present its case, along with detailed financial statements indicating income and expenditure on each account, to the Parent Teacher Association to justify the need for any hike. Any increase in Tuition Fee shall be effected only after fulfilling this requirement and further subject to the cap prescribed in paragraph 4 below."

7. In view of the above, it is clear that there is no fault whatsoever in the

impugned judgments of the courts below, which has decreed the suits of the

respondents-plaintiffs and granted them benefits of pay increases as per the

6th Pay Commission Report and arrears of salary in this regard.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-school very passionately sought to

draw benefit of observations made in a bunch of cases with lead case Delhi

Abhibhavak Mahasangh And Ors. etc. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi in

WP(C) No.7777/2009 decided by a Division Bench of this Court on

12.8.2011 to contend that the Division Bench has referred the aspect of

enhancement of fees to a Committee of which Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Dev

Singh (retired Chief Justice, Rajasthan High Court) is the Chairman, and that

since the appellant-school was a party in the writ petition and the appellant-

school has been issued notices by the said committee, it is only after the

report is received of the committee taken with para-7 of the order of the

Director of Education dated 11.2.2009, that payment can be made as per

circular dated 11.2.2009 and that consequently there arises a substantial

question of law as argued herein before me that the courts below ought not

have passed the impugned judgments and decrees.

In my opinion, the arguments urged on behalf of the appellant-school

are misconceived for various reasons. Firstly, the teachers were not parties

to the writ petition and therefore, the orders in the writ petition are not

binding on the respondents-plaintiffs. Further, I have already reproduced the

first three paras of the order of the Director of Education which state that

payment of enhanced salaries in terms of the 6th Pay Commission Report

does not have any co-relation with enhancement of fees and which is only an

option which will be available subject to approval. Also, the circular/order

dated 11.2.2009 does not state that till the fees are actually enhanced, no

payment of salaries will be made to teachers in terms of the 6 th Pay

Commission Report. In this regard, I have already reproduced above the

judgment which has been passed by this Court with respect to the fact that

the enhancement and receipt of fees from the students is not a pre-condition

for implementation of the order of the Director of Education dated

11.2.2009.

9. In view of above, no substantial question of law arises, inasmuch as

the order of the Director of Education dated 11.2.2009 is clear and

categorical as stated above of requiring its immediate implementation and

not being co-related to enhancement of fees by the students. No substantial

question of law also arises because Section 10 of the Delhi School Education

Act, 1973 is crystal clear that teachers in private schools are entitled to get

the same salary/emoluments as being paid to teachers in government

schools.

10. In view of the above, there is no merit in the regular second appeals,

and which are therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own

costs.

JANUARY 31, 2014                               VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib