Poonam Sharma And Ors. vs Lt. Governor And Ors.
2017 Latest Caselaw 1012 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          W.P.(C) No. 4601/2010
%                                                       21st February, 2017

POONAM SHARMA AND ORS.                                        ..... Petitioner
                Through:                  Mr. Ravi Bassi, Advocate.
                           versus

LT. GOVERNOR AND ORS.                                       ..... Respondents

                 Through:                Mr. Ankur Chhiber, Advocate for R-1
                                         and 2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, though there are several prayers made, today only prayer (iv) is

pressed for directions against the respondent nos. 3 and 4/school/employer

to give the petitioners their full salary and service benefits.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners pleads that petitioners are

entitled to benefit of Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 for

being granted salaries which are the same as the salaries of employees in

government schools, and to which legal proposition there is no quarrel,

however, before this Court grants the relief of a particular pay-scale, it has

first to be established by pleadings and documents of the petitioners that

petitioners were getting what particular pay-scale and which is less than

which particular pay-scale of similarly situated employees of government

schools. There are no documents annexed to the writ petition as to what are

the salaries which the petitioners were drawing and also that what are the

salaries which petitioners claim of similarly placed persons such as the

petitioners who are Assistant Teachers in government schools, and

therefore, in the absence of pleadings and necessary supporting

documentation, this Court cannot direct that the petitioners were in fact paid

lesser salaries, what is the difference of salaries which the petitioners were

entitled to, and so on.

3. I may also note that this writ petition even if allowed, will be a

case of 'operation successful patient dead' because even if the reliefs are

granted to the petitioners of a particular higher pay scale, such reliefs could

only have been enforced against the employer/school, but admittedly the

subject school being respondent no. 3/City Public (Co-Ed) Middle School,

has been closed long back since around the year 2010. As per the law

prevalent in Delhi on account of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973

every school is a separate legal entity being different than the society or the

trust which runs the school, and the liability with respect to salaries etc of

employees is only of the school and not of the society or the trust which

runs the school. Once the school therefore is closed since long obviously

petitioners would not be able to get any effective relief.

4. In view of the fact that writ petition does not substantiate the

factual aspects as to what salaries the petitioners are getting and as to the

differences of salaries which the petitioners are entitled to on account of

salaries payable to similar employees of government schools, hence in the

absence of necessary pleadings and documentation, only by which certainty

would have existed to pass a judgment, hence this writ petition is dismissed.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

FEBRUARY 21, 2017/ib                               VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J