Delhi High Court
Shaheed Udham Singh Smarak ... vs Directorate Of Education & Ors. on 13 January, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.10066/2016
% 13th January, 2017
SHAHEED UDHAM SINGH SMARAK CO-EDUCATION SEC.
SCHOOL THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Padma Priya, Advocate.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC with Ms.
Niti Jain, Advocate for GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.39889/2016 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
C.M. stands disposed of.
+W.P.(C) No.10066/2016 and C.M. No.39888/2016 (stay)
2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India the petitioner-school impugns the order passed by the Director of
Education dated 8.7.2016. The order dated 8.7.2016 has been passed by the
Director of Education in consequence of the order dated 4.3.2015 passed in
W.P.(C) No.10066/2016 Page 1 of 7
W.P. (C) Nos.1706/2013 & 1865/2013 which was filed by the respondents
no. 2 and 3 herein. This order dated 4.3.2015 reads as under:-
"1. After arguments, these petitions are disposed of with the consent order
that in W.P.(C) No. 1706/2013 the petitioner Sh. Raj Kumar will be paid 100%
salary by the respondent no.1-school for the period for which petitioner Sh. Raj
Kumar has worked from 17.1.2012 to 1.11.2014 and in W.P.(C) No. 1865/2013
the petitioner Smt.Vinita Gaur will similarly get the payment for the period
from 16.1.2012 to 11.11.2014. These payments be made to the petitioners
within a period of four weeks from today. It is specifically agreed that these
petitioners will not be entitled to any interest for delayed payment and for costs.
2. I may clarify that the aforesaid dates are given to me by the counsel for
the petitioners.
3. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed and disposed of in terms of
the aforesaid order."
3. It is seen that the order dated 4.3.2015 is a consent order and
that the petitioner-school was represented through its Advocates. The order
dated 4.3.2015 clearly talks of the specific period for which the petitioners
in those writ petitions, namely Smt. Vinita Gaur and Sh. Raj Kumar and
who are the respondent nos.2 and 3 in this writ petition, must be paid 100%
of salary. The expression 100% of salary obviously means 100% of salary
which is legally payable.
4. The impugned order of the Director of Education dated
8.7.2016 shows that salary which is payable to the respondent nos.2 and 3
herein should be as per law, and which law is as per Section 10 of the Delhi
School Education Act, 1973 which states that employees of private schools
W.P.(C) No.10066/2016 Page 2 of 7
in Delhi must receive all monetary benefits and salary equal to similarly
placed employees in government schools.
5. The impugned order of the Director of Education dated
8.7.2016 reads as under:-
"GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
OFFICE OF THE DY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (NORTH)
LUCKNOW ROAD TIMARPUR DELHI-110054
No. DDE(North)/PB(3886)/2015/416-419 Dated: 8-7-2016
ORDER
WHEREAS, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide an order dated 28-08-2015
in Contempt Petitions No.433 & 438 titled as Vinita Gaur Vs. Shaheed Udham
Singh School and Sh. Raj Kumar Vs. Shaheed Udham Singh School has
directed that:-
" Since there is a dispute with regard to the salary that is to be paid to
the Petitioners, this court directs the Director of Education or any
other officer appointed by the said Director to determine as to what
salaries, the Petitioners are entitled to be paid w.e.f. 01-02-2013 to 11-
11-2014. Parties are directed to appear before the Director of
Education on 5th October 2015 at 2.30 p.m. The Director of Education
or its nominee shall pass a speaking order after giving hearing to all
the parties."
WHEREAS, Ms. Vinita Gaur and Mr. Raj Kumar were appointed as TGTs
(Sanskrit) in Shaheed Udham Singh Smarak Sr. Sec. School by the Managing
Committee w.e.f 16/01/2012 and 17/01/2012 vide school letters
No.SUSSV.2012/1379 dated 09/01/2012 and No.SUSSV/2012/1490 dated
16/01/2012 respectively in the Pay Band-2 of Rs.9300-34800 with Grade Pay
of Rs.4600/- plus usual allowances admissible but the said appointments were
cancelled vide letter No.F.Zone-VIII/FN/53-56 dated 18/01/2012 as the
candidates were not eligible for appointment. The appointment letters issued
to them were also cancelled by the Director of Education vide order
No.DDE(N) Admn/2012/764 dated 29/02/2012 in accordance with the
directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 5/01/2012 in WPC
No.69/2012 regarding Re-employment of Mrs. Prem Lata Gupta retired TGT
Sanskrit and also in view of the fact that these candidates did not have the
mandatory CTET qualification and,
WHEREAS, in spite of the cancellation of their appointments by the
Directorate of Education, Mrs. Vinita Gaur and Mr. Raj Kumar were allowed
to continue to work in the school by the school authorities un-authorisedly in
violation of the aforesaid orders of the Directorate of Education. Not only this,
but Smt. Vinita Gaur was confirmed on the posts of TGT(Skt) in the pay scale
of PB-2 9300-34800 w.e.f 16/01/2013 by the school authorities vide their letter
No.SUSSV/2013/2100 dated 6/02/2013 on their own volition and,
WHEREAS, Mrs. Vinita Gaur and Mr. Raj Kumar filed WP (C)
No.1865/2013 and 1706/2013 respectively and the Hon'ble High Court vide
order dated 04/03/2015 has directed that the Respondent No.1-School will pay
100% salary to Sh. Raj Kumar, petitioner in WP(C) No.1706/2013 for period
he has worked from 17/01/2012 to 1/11/2014 and in W.P.(C) No.1865/2013
the petitioner Smt. Vinita Gaur will similarly get the payment for the period
from 16/01/2012 to 11/11/2014 and,
WHEREAS, the School failed to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble
High Court as stated above and Mrs. Vinita Gaur & Mr. Raj Kumar, filed
contempt petitions bearing No.CAS(C) 433/2015 & CAS(C) 438/2015 and the
Hon'ble Court vide order dated 28/08/2015 has directed as follows:-
"Since there is a dispute with regard to the salary that is to be paid to
the Petitioners, this court directs the Director of Education or any
other officer appointed by the said Director to determine as to what
salaries, the Petitioner are entitled to be paid w.e.f. 01-02-2013 to 11-
11-2014. Parties are directed to appear before the Director of
Education on 5th October 2015 at 2.30 p.m. The Director of Education
or its nominee shall pass a speaking order after giving hearing to all
the parties." And
WHEREAS, In compliance of the said orders of the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi, a meeting was held in the chamber of Special Director of Education on
05.10.2015 wherein Chairman of the School, and both the Petitioners appeared
and the parties were directed to make their respective submissions and to
submit documents in support of their cases and,
WHEREAS, both the Petitioners had contended that they had actually worked
on the post of TGT and are thus entitled to the salary which is admissible to a
TGT of Govt School i.e. Minimum Basic Pay of Rs.17140/- plus other
allowances and
WHEREAS, the Chairman of the School neither submitted any documentary
evidence nor any oral submissions as to how the Petitioners are not entitled to
the salary for the post of TGT whereas the fact remains that the Petitioner had
actually performed the duties of a TGT during the relevant period and
WHEREAS, the provision of Section 10(1) of the Delhi School Education
Act, 1973 provide that
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 recognized private school shall not be less than
those of the employees of the corresponding status in school run by the
appropriate authority, and
WHEREAS, it is nobody's case that the Petitioners had not performed the
duties of TGT during the relevant period,
NOW THEREFORE, after having considered the entire facts of the case,
directions of the Hon'ble High Court viz-a-viz rule position aforesaid, it is
hereby determined that the Managing Committee of Shaheed Udham Singh
Smarak Co-Education Secondary School is liable to pay salary and other
allowances to the Petitioners namely Ms. Vinita Gaur and Mr. Raj Kumar @
basic salary of Rs.17140/- plus other allowances (from time to time) for the
period that they had actually performed the duties of TGT as is admissible to
the TGTs of Govt School keeping in with the terms and conditions as
conveyed by the School Management to the Petitioners through appointment
letters.
This disposes of the directions dated 28-08-2015 as passed by Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi in the cases aforesaid.
DY. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
DISTT-NORTH
To
1. Chairman Shaheed Udham Singh School
2. Ms. Vinita Gaur
3. Mr. Raj Kumar
Copy to:-
1. DDE (Zone-08), Directorate of Education, Lucknow Road, Timarpur,
Delhi-54.
DY. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
DISTT-NORTH."
6. I have therefore failed to understand as to how such a simple
and normal order of the Director of Education dated 8.7.2016, and which is
passed pursuant to the consent order dated 4.3.2015 of this Court in W.P.
(C) Nos.1706/2013 and 1865/2013, can be at all challenged by the
petitioner-school.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-school argues that there was
a contempt petition filed and in this contempt petition the issue arose with
respect to the respondent nos.2 and 3 herein getting only a fixed salary as
earlier paid, however, I do not find that the order in the contempt petition
dated 28.8.2015 in any manner whittles down the issue decided by the order
dated 4.3.2015 in W.P.(C) Nos.1706/2013 and 1865/2013 that entitlement
of the respondent nos.2 and 3 is for 100% salary in accordance with law.
The order dated 28.8.2015 in the contempt petitions being CCP
Nos.433/2015 and 438/2015 reads as under:-
" Present contempt petitions have been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the
order dated 4th March, 2015 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in
W.P.(C) 1706/2013 and 1865/2013. The order dated 4th March, 2015 is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
"1. After arguments, these petitions are disposed of with the consent
order that in W.P.(C) No. 1706/2013 the petitioner Sh. Raj Kumar will be
paid 100% salary by the respondent no.1- school for the period for which
petitioner Sh. Raj Kumar has worked from 17.1.2012 to 1.11.2014 and in
W.P.(C) No. 1865/2013 the petitioner Smt.Vinita Gaur will similarly get the
payment for the period from 16.1.2012 to 11.11.2014.
These payments be made to the petitioners within a period of four weeks
from today. It is specifically agreed that these petitioners will not be entitled
to any interest for delayed payment and for costs.
2. I may clarify that the aforesaid dates are given to me by the counsel
for the petitioners.
3. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed and disposed of in terms of
the aforesaid order."
It is the case of the respondents that the order dated 4th March, 2015 stand fully
complied with in the case of Mr. Raj Kumar while in the case of Ms. Vanita
Gaur, respondents state that they have paid Rs. 2,50,000/- out of Rs. 4,37,826/-
which according to them is payable.
However, learned counsel for petitioners states that the respondents are making
payment of salaries only @Rs. 5,000/- per month w.e.f. 1st December, 2013,
which according to him is not even a basic minimum wage.
Since there is a dispute with regard to the salary that is to be paid to the
petitioners, this Court directs the Director of Education or any other officer
appointed by the said Director to determine as to what salaries the petitioners
are entitled to be paid w.e.f. 1st February, 2013 to 11th November, 2014.
Parties are directed to appear before the Director of Education on 5th October,
2015 at 2.30 p.m.
The Director of Education or its nominee shall pass a speaking order after
given hearing to all the parties.
With the aforesaid direction, present contempt petitions are disposed of.
Order dasti to all parties."
8. It is therefore clear that this writ petition is an abuse of process
of law. Petitioner-school is somehow or other not only trying to wriggle out
of the consent order but also is endeavoring to ensure that law is not
complied with because law requires salaries to be paid to employees and
teachers of the private schools equal to those as paid by the government
schools in view of Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act.
9. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed with costs.
Respondent no.1 will file its certificate of costs and such costs shall be paid
by the petitioner-school to the respondent no.1 within four weeks from
today.
JANUARY 13, 2017 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne
