Delhi High Court
Sheela Banerjee vs Managing Committee National ... on 28 April, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P. No. (C) 2171/2013
28th April, 2015
SHEELA BANERJEE ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Indrani Ghosh, Advocate.
versus
MANAGING COMMITTEE NATIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ORS
..... Respondents
Through: None.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. No one appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 3 in spite of the matter
having been passed over once. It is now 12.45 p.m. I have heard the counsel
for the petitioner and perused the record. I am hence proceeding to dispose of
the petition.
2. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner, who was an employee of the respondent no.1/School, seeks the
relief that she be granted all monetary benefits as payable to an employee of the
School as per the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission Report
read with the provision of Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973.
3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed by the
respondent no.1/School at its Bela Road Branch and on the closure of the Bela
Road Branch, in pursuant to an order passed by the Directorate of Education in
exercise of powers under Rule 46 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973,
petitioner was to be absorbed either in the Darya Ganj Branch or in the Kalindi
Branch of the School. Petitioner was thereafter, absorbed in the Kalindi Branch
and worked till her superannuation in January, 2010. The petitioner
accordingly claims monetary emoluments as per the writ petition.
4. Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 is very clear and it
states that an employee of a private school will be entitled to have the same
monetary benefits and other benefits similar to those which are payable to the
teachers and employees of government run schools. Petitioner is therefore
entitled to the benefit of monetary emoluments as are payable to teachers and
employees of government run schools.
5. The Directorate of Education vide its circular dated 11.02.2009 directed
the schools in Delhi to pay to its employees emoluments payable as per the
recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission Report and make the
consequential amendments to the salaries which are paid to the teachers. Once
the circular of the Directorate of Education dated 11.02.2009 became
applicable, the petitioner in terms of this circular was entitled to enhancement
of salary, and therefore, petitioner is held entitled to the benefit of enhanced
salary in terms of the circular dated 11.02.2009, as also consequential benefits,
which thereupon would be applicable with respect to gratuity payable to the
petitioner under the Payment of Gratuity Act , 1972. I may note that I have
already held that schools are liable to pay gratuity as per the judgement in the
case of Deepak Dua Vs. Directorate of Education and Anr. in W.P.(C) No.
7040/2011 decided on 10.04.2013. Petitioner therefore will be entitled to the
payment of gratuity in terms of the circular of the Directorate of Education
dated 28.03.2013 and which circular is reproduced in the judgment passed in
Deepak Dua's case (supra).
6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of by giving
benefit to the petitioner of the enhanced pay applicable as per the Report of the
6th Central Pay Commission applicable to schools in terms of the circular of the
Directorate of Education dated 11.02.2009 and other consequential
enhancements including the payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity
Act, 1972 as per the ratio of Deepak Dua's case (supra). Respondent no.1 will
expedite the payment due to the petitioner and the same be paid preferably
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the
present judgment.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
APRIL 28, 2015 /n
