Delhi High Court
Shri Chand Aggarwal vs Smarth Shiksha Samiti & Ors. on 19 March, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.7367/2014
% 19th March, 2015
SHRI CHAND AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bakshi, Advocate.
versus
SMARTH SHIKSHA SAMITI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate with
Mr. Sheel Vardhan, Advocate for
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The limited relief which is prayed before this Court by the
petitioner is that the petitioner who ordinarily retires on 30.11.2014, should
be retired not on this date but should be retired only at the end of the
academic session on 30.4.2015, and as provided under Rule 110 of the Delhi
School Education Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').
2. The issue argued on behalf of the petitioner is covered in favour
of the petitioner by the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of
Nutan Gulati Vs. Director of Education and Ors. in W.P.(C) No.109/2013
decided on 9.7.2013. Relevant paras of this judgment are paras 3,7 and 8
and which read as under:-
"3. So far as the relief of employment up to 30.4.2013 is
concerned, it would be necessary at this stage to reproduce Rule 110
with its sub-Rule 2 and proviso. Rule 110 reads as under:-
"110. Retirement age.-(1) Except where an existing
employee is entitled to have a higher age of retirement, every
employee of a recognised private school, whether aided or not,
shall hold office until he attains the age of 58 years:
Provided that the managing committee may grant
extension to a teacher for a period not exceeding two years in
the aggregate, if in the opinion of the managing committee
such teacher is fit for such extension and has no mortal or
physical incapacity which would disentitle him to get such
extension:
Provided further that no such extension shall be granted
in the case of a teacher of an aided school except with the
previous approval of the Director.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule(1), every
teacher, laboratory assistant, Librarians, Principal or Vice-
Principal employed in such school shall continue to hold office
until he attains the age of 60 years.
Provided that where a teacher, Principal or Vice-Principal
attains the age of superannuation on or after the 1 st day of
November of any year, such teacher, Principal or Vice-
Principal shall be re-employed upto the 30th day of April of the
year immediately following."
xxxxxxx
7. In my opinion, the argument urged on behalf of the petitioner
merits acceptance and I do not agree with the argument urged on
behalf of respondent no.2-school for the reason that so far as the
applicability of Section 10(1) is concerned, the same quite clearly and
categorically as per its literal interpretation gives whatever benefits are
available to employees of Government schools would also be
available to teachers/employees of unaided private schools in Delhi.
Section 10(1) does not restrict benefits only to salary/monetary
benefits as the expression used in Section 10(1) is "other prescribed
benefits". Respondent no.2 is unaided private school in Delhi and
therefore, it is bound by the provision of Section 10(1) to give benefits
to its teachers which are those as granted to teachers of the
Government schools. Since in Government schools as per circular of
Director of Education dated 21.1.2011 librarians are to have all
benefits applicable to teachers in teaching category, the petitioner who
is a librarian will also get all benefits as those granted to a teacher in
an unaided private schools. The argument of the respondent no.2 on
the basis of the expression "Administrator" as found in Section 2(e)
(ii) of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 is
misconceived because the expression "Administrator" is used in this
provision with respect to the authority which runs/owns the school and
not with respect to issuance of circulars for being applicable to
schools, and which is the prerogative of the Director of
Education/authority which governs the school under the provisions of
the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973.
8. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and it is
directed that respondent no.2-school will consider the re-employment
of the petitioner in terms of the ratio of the judgment in the case of
Shashi Kohli (supra). Petitioner however, will be given all benefits
as if she continued in employment till 30.4.2013. Unpaid dues of the
petitioner be now paid in four weeks. Parties are left to bear their own
costs."
3. I am bound by the judgment in the case of Nutan Gulati
(supra) and therefore the writ petition will have to be allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 argues that the
provisions of Rule 110 of the Rules will not prevent the School from
terminating the employment of an employee even before the academic year
ends once the employer has enough staff at its disposal for performing the
duties which were performed by the retired employee, however, I note that
in the provision of Rule 110 of the Rules there is no such exception provided
by which a school is entitled not to continue the employee/teacher till the
end of the academic year on the ground that other staff is available to the
school for performing the duties of the employee who retires within the
academic year after 1st November. If I accept the argument urged on behalf
of respondent nos.1 and 2 that would mean that I would be legislating and
modifying the specific language of Rule 110 of the Rules which does not
contain any exception or proviso of the language, as is argued on behalf of
respondent nos.1 and 2.
5. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and petitioner
is held not to superannuate on 30.11.2014 but on 30.4.2015, however,
petitioner for this period from 1.12.2014 till 30.4.2015 so far as monetary
reliefs are concerned, he will only get 2/3rd of the monthly salary and
connected payments inasmuch as every employee who works does not take
home the entire pay inasmuch as some amount of pay is spent for earning
the monetary emoluments. Equity therefore demands that respondent nos.1
and 2 be only directed to pay 2/3rd of the salary and other connected
monetary emoluments from 1.12.2014 till 30.4.2015. It is also made clear
that petitioner will return for working with the respondent no.2/School
within a period of two days from today and respondent no.2/ School will
give appropriate duties to the petitioner as the respondent no.2/School thinks
fit.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
MARCH 19, 2015
KA
