Sunita Ghai vs Rajiv Malhotra & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 8965 Del

35
$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      CONT.CAS(C) 576/2015

       SUNITA GHAI                             ..... Petitioner
                         Through: Mr. Kamlesh Ghai, Advocate.

                         versus

       RAJIV MALHOTRA & ORS                 ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. S.N. Tripathi, Advocate with
                             Ms. Ankita Pandey, Advocate for R-1
                             to R-3.
                             Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC (Civil) for
                             DoE, GNCTD.

%                                 Date of Decision : 02nd December, 2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

                             JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)

1. Present contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of order dated 29th September, 2014 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 6758/2014. The operative portion of the aforesaid order dated 29th September, 2014 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"4. In view of the aforesaid submission, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the present petition at the stage of admission, with directions issued to the respondent No.2/DOE to consider the representation dated 13.09.2014 submitted by the petitioner (Annexure P-4) and after granting a hearing to her as also to the respondent No.1/School, pass a speaking

order under written intimation to both parties. Needful shall be done within four months from today.

5. If some directions are issued to the respondent No.1/School for release of the arrears of salary, pay and other emoluments to the petitioner, then the respondent No.2/DOE shall ensure compliances thereof in accordance with law.

(emphasis supplied)

2. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the Director of Education passed an order dated 07th March, 2015 directing the respondent-school to pay the salaries and other allowances as per the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission and in accordance with Section 10 of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 along with arrears to the petitioner within three months positively.

3. Upon a representation being made by the Manager of the respondent- School to review the aforesaid order dated 7th March, 2015, the Deputy Director (Education), District North, directed the respondent-school vide order dated 12th August, 2015 to make the payments in question in 36 equated monthly installments (EMIs) w.e.f. July, 2015 to the petitioner.

4. As the aforesaid order of the Deputy Director (Education), District North was not complied with, present contempt petition was filed.

5. Learned counsel for respondent-school submits that the order dated 07th March, 2015 passed by the Director of Education is non-speaking, unreasoned, cryptic, vague and null and void. He further submits that the order dated 07th March, 2015 is beyond the scope of petitioner's representation dated 13th September, 2014 inasmuch as the petitioner had in the said representation only prayed for a direction to the respondent-school not to terminate her services and not to torture her.

6. Mr. Gautam Narayan, learned counsel for Director of Education and Mr. Kamlesh Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner refute the aforesaid contentions and submissions.

7. With the assistance of learned counsel for parties, this Court has perused the paper book and it finds that the petitioner's representation dated 13th September, 2014 contains allegations and averments that petitioner had not been paid salaries and emoluments in accordance with the Sixth Pay Commission. The relevant portion of the petitioner's representation dated 13th September, 2014 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"........The school never paid salary and other emoluments to the undersigned as per Section 10 of Delhi School Education Act, however I never objected on the same. HRA, D.A., T.A., etc. has never been paid to the undersigned and other employees of the school. The Directorate of Education implemented Sixth Pay Commission scale in private recognized schools of Delhi and in order to implement the same, issued Circular dated 11.02.2009. All the recognized schools were directed to make payment of arrears in two instalments to staff of the school. The management of the school did not pay the arrears to the staff of the school in accordance with Circular dated 11.02.2009."

(emphasis supplied)

8. Further, this Court is of the view that if the respondent-School was aggrieved by the decision dated 07th March, 2015, it should have challenged the same in a Court or a Tribunal.

9. The representations made by the respondent-school to the Director of Education after the orders dated 07th March, 2015 and 12th August, 2015 in the opinion of this Court are irrelevant and untenable in law.

10. As admittedly, the order dated 07th March, 2015 has not been challenged in a Court or Tribunal till date and the said order which has been passed in pursuance to the directions given by this Court on 29 th September, 2014, there is no other option, but to reach the conclusion that respondent- School has wilfully violated the order dated 29th September, 2014 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court.

11. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent-school states that his clients would like to challenge the orders dated 07th March, 2015 and 12th August, 2015 passed by the Director of Education.

12. Accordingly, this Court directs that unless and until an order is passed by a competent Court or Tribunal, the respondent-school shall pay the outstanding arrears in accordance with the order dated 12 th August, 2015 within a period of four weeks.

13. If the needful is not done within the stipulated time, Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Manager and owner of Ravindra Memorial Public School shall be personally present in Court on the next date of hearing.

List the matter on 19th January, 2016.

MANMOHAN, J DECEMBER 02, 2015 js