Delhi High Court
Cambridge Foundation School & ... vs Sh. V.R. Subramanian & Anr. on 26 March, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 2583/2014
% 26th March, 2015
CAMBRIDGE FOUNDATION SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. K.R.Sunder Rao, Adv.
versus
SH. V.R. SUBRAMANIAN & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. for R-1.
Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Adv. R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, petitioner-School-Cambridge Foundation School
Rajouri Garden Extension, New Delhi impugns the judgment of the Delhi
School Tribunal dated 29.10.2013 by which the Delhi School Tribunal
allowed the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 herein and directed that the
action taken by the petitioner herein/School for reduction of basic pay of the
respondent no.1 herein from that of a Lab-Assistant to a Lab-Attendant -
Class-IV employee, is quashed. Putting it differently, the Tribunal has, by
WP(C) No. 2583/2014 Page 1 of 6
the impugned judgment, directed that the respondent no.1 herein, should
continue to receive the pay-scale of a Lab Assistant inasmuch as, respondent
no.1 since the beginning of his employment was getting the scale of pay of a
Lab Assistant and not a Lab Attendant.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent no.1 was employed
by the petitioner-School in 1993 vide letter dated 29.6.1993 to the post of
Lab Attendant with the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-30-1560-40-2040. Though
appointment of the respondent no.1 was as a Lab Attendant, the pay-scale of
Rs.1200-30-1560-40-2040 was the pay-scale of a Lab Assistant.
Respondent no.1 continued to receive this pay scale till April, 2009, when
the petitioner was granted the basic pay starting from Rs.10,970 of a Lab
Attendant and not Rs.17,290 and which later basic pay was the basic starting
pay of a Lab Assistant. The petitioner/School herein reduced the pay-scale
on the ground that respondent no.1 was not qualified for being appointed as
a Lab Assistant inasmuch as, respondent no. 1 did not have his schooling
qualification upto 10+2 level in the science stream, and which qualification a
person was bound to have for being appointed as a Lab Assistant in terms of
the relevant circular of the Director of Education dated 21.3.1990.
3. The case of the respondent no.1, appellant before the Tribunal
was that since he was given the basic scale of pay of a Lab Assistant from
WP(C) No. 2583/2014 Page 2 of 6
the beginning, therefore w.e.f April, 2009 also, respondent no.1 must
continue to receive the basic pay of a Lab Assistant and the basic scale could
not be reduced which was payable to the post of a Lab Attendant- a post
lower than the post of Lab Assistant.
4. It is not disputed by the respondent no.1 that there is no post of
a Lab Attendant in the schools in terms of any of the circulars or guidelines
or notifications issued by the Director of Education and the post is only of a
Lab Assistant. This post of Lab Assistant requires that a person who is
appointed as a Lab Assistant must have the qualification of senior secondary
or intermediate in the science stream. The post of Lab Attendant is actually
a misnomer in a way because actually a Lab Attendant is not a feeder cadre
to the post of Lab Assistant and appointment of Lab Attendant is
appointment of a Class-IV employee.
5. The issue is that whether petitioner/School could have reduced
the pay-scale of the respondent no.1 w.e.f April, 2009 on coming into force
of the 6th Central Pay Commission Report and from when the respondent
no.1 has been granted the pay-scale not of a Lab Assistant but of a Class-IV
employee.
6. I may at this stage take on record the statement of the counsel
for the petitioner/School that petitioner is not seeking to make any recovery
WP(C) No. 2583/2014 Page 3 of 6
against the respondent no.1 for any amount paid to the respondent no.1
before April, 2009 and the only intention of the School is to reduce the basic
pay of the respondent no.1 from the post of a Lab Assistant to a post of Lab
Attendant w.e.f April, 2009.
7. In view of the aforesaid statement made on behalf of the
petitioner/School, this Court only has to examine the issue as to whether
petitioner/School is violating the provision of Section 10 of the Delhi School
Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on coming into
force the 6th Central Pay Commission Report with respect to payment of
salary etc to teachers and employees of schools of Delhi. Section 10 of the
Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 reads as under:-
"10. Salaries of employees- (1) The scales of pay and allowances, medical
facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and other prescribed benefits of the
employees of a recognised private school shall not be less than those of the
employees of the corresponding status in school run by the appropriate authority:
Provided that where the scales of pay and allowances, medical facilities, pension,
gratuity, provident fund and other prescribed benefits of the employees of any
recognised private school are less than those of the employees of the
corresponding status in the schools run by the appropriate authority, the
appropriate authority shall direct, in writing, the managing committee of such
bring the same up to the level of those of the employees of the corresponding
status in schools run by the appropriate authority:
Provided further that the failure to comply with such direction deemed to be non-
compliance with the conditions for continuing recognition of an existing school
and the provisions of section 4 shall apply accordingly.
(2) The managing committee of every aided school shall deposit month, every
month, its share towards pay and allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity,
provident fund and other prescribed benefits with the Administrator and the
WP(C) No. 2583/2014 Page 4 of 6
Administrator shall disburse, or cause to be disbursed, within the first week of
every month, the salaries and allowances to the employees of the aided schools."
8. A reading of the aforesaid Section 10 of the Act shows that the
only duty which is cast upon a school in Delhi in terms of this provision is
that an employee of a private school will not be paid less monetary and other
prescribed benefits than those payable to employees of corresponding status
in a school run by the government. Therefore, the only mandate of law is
that petitioner/School must comply with Section 10 of the Act and give the
respondent no.1 the same salary and other prescribed benefits as payable to
an employee of corresponding status in the government school.
9. Status of respondent no.1 is not of a Lab Assistant inasmuch as,
respondent no.1 does not have the qualification for being appointed as a Lab
Assistant inasmuch as he did not have the science stream while passing out
from the school at the 10+2 level. Respondent no.1 therefore is only
qualified to be a Class-IV employee and therefore the status of the
respondent no.1 has only to be equal to a corresponding status in
government school given to a Class-IV employee of a government school.
Respondent no.1 therefore can seek application of Section 10 of the Act only
for the purpose of claiming the scale of pay as payable to a Class-IV
employee in a government school. It is not disputed that with effect from
WP(C) No. 2583/2014 Page 5 of 6
April, 2009 respondent no.1 is getting the basic salary as payable to a Class-
IV employee in a government school and that he is only not being paid the
higher salary which was payable to the post of Lab Assistant. Therefore the
petitioner/School is not violating the law but following the law by giving the
same salary to the respondent no.1 as payable to a Class-IV employee in a
government school.
10. As already stated above, respondent no.1 is not entitled to basic
pay of a Lab Assistant but is only entitled to basic pay of a Class-IV
employee as per his qualification for being appointed as an employee of a
school in Delhi.
11. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. The
impugned judgment of the Delhi School Tribunal dated 29.10.2013 is set
aside. Action of the petitioner/School in not giving the respondent no.1 basic
pay from April, 2009 of a Lab Assistant, and only giving the basic pay of a
Class-IV employee on implementation of the 6 th Central Pay Commission
Report is upheld.
MARCH 26, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
