Delhi High Court
Summer Fields School vs Union Of India & Ors. on 10 July, 2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: July 10, 2015
+ W.P.(C) 2144/2015, CM Nos. 3850/2015 & 4826/2015
SUMMER FIELDS SCHOOL
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Kamal Gupta, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi,
ASC for Govt. of NCT of
Delhi
Ms.Indrani Ghosh, Adv. with
Ms.Tamali Wad, Adv. for R-
3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J. (Oral)
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated December
2, 2014, passed by the Director of Education, Govt. of NCT, Delhi,
respondent No.2, to the extent that the Director has allowed the claim of
the respondent No.3 for grant of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity
Act, even for a period before April 3, 1997.
2. The challenge is on the ground that the amendment to the Payment
of Gratuity Act, including the definition of the word 'Employee', being
made effective from April 3, 1997, a teacher of a school is not entitled to
the benefits prior to that date. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case reported as
1983 (4) SCC 45 Management of Good Year India Ltd Vs. K.G.
Devessar, K.B. Subanna Vs. Delhi Kannada Senior Secondary School
and Anr. Writ Petition (Civil) No.1659/2013 decided by this Court on
December 12, 2013 in support of his contention.
3. The respondent No.3 has filed counter affidavit to the writ petition
wherein one of the contention is that, in terms of provision of Section 10
(1) of the Delhi School Education Act, it is an obligation of the school to
provide, gratuity to the teachers. Learned counsel for the respondent
No.3, during the submissions has also relied upon certain judgments
including one reported as 1998 (9) SCC 192 Central Coal Fields Ltd
VS. Union of India and Ors, Shambhu Nath Chatterjee Vs. Eastern
Coal Fields Ltd and Anr. decided on August 8, 2013 in FMA 585/2009,
Municipal Corporation, Burhanpur Vs. Smt. Jasoda Bai Writ Appeal
Nos. 1385/2013, 1386/2013, 1387/2013 decided on August 26, 2014 by
the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in support of her contention.
4. I note, that the impugned order only reflects consideration of one
issue i.e entitlement of respondent No.3 to gratuity for a period, before
April 3, 1997 on the basis of interpretation given to the
amendments/provisions in the Payment of Gratuity Act and by referring
to a judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein
ie The School Management, which is, 2004 (1) SCC 755 Ahmedabad
Private Primary Teachers' Association Vs. Administrative Officer and
Ors.
5. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 that
the submissions with regard to the mandate of Section 10 (1) of the Delhi
School Education Act was not urged before the Director of Education,
the respondent No.2 herein, as an alternative submission for making a
claim for gratuity for the period before April 3, 1997.
6. During the course of the submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner/school has suggested that the matter can be remanded back to
the Director of Education for re-consideration of all the issues, which
have been raised by learned counsel for respondent No.3 as well as by
the petitioner in the writ petition afresh as the issue would have a far-
reaching consequence, not only with regard to the petitioner/school but
also with regard to the other schools in Delhi. This suggestion of learned
counsel for the petitioner is acceptable to the learned counsel for
respondent No.3.
7. In view of the above position, the order dated December 2, 2014 is
set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Director of Education for
re-consideration of the claim of the respondent No.3 for payment of
gratuity with effect from the date of her appointment in the petitioner's
school afresh by considering all the issues/grounds raised by the parties
before me including the judgments they have relied upon.
8. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
(V.KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
JULY 10, 2015/ak
