Social Jurist, A Civil Rights ... vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors
2019 Latest Caselaw 5789 Del

$~13
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                Date of Decision: 20th November, 2019
+      W.P.(C) 5446/2018
       SOCIAL JURIST, A CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP     ..... Petitioner
                      Through: Mr.Ashok Agarwal, Adv. with
                      Mr.Kumar Utkarsh, Adv.
                Versus
       GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr.Ramesh Singh, Standing Counsel
                    with Mr.Chirayu Jain, Ms.Nikita Goyal, Advs. for
                    GNCTD.
                    Ms.Monika Arora, Adv. with Mr.Kushal Kumar,
                    Adv. for North DMC.
                    Mr.Anil Panwar, Adv. with Mr.Rahul Singh, Adv.
                    For R-3.
                    Mr.G.D.Mishra, Standing Counsel for R-4/EDMC.
                    Mr.Sunil Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Kamal Gupta,
                    Mr.Yudhishter Kaushik, Advs. for R-5.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
                                  JUDGMENT

D.N. PATEL, Chief Justice (Oral)

1. This Public Interest Litigation has been preferred with the following prayers:

"i. direct Respondents to undertake all such measures to ensure implementation of the 7th Pay Commission recommendations qua over 2 lakh teaching and non-teaching employees of nearly 2000 Unaided Private Schools of Delhi in order to bring their pay, allowances and other benefits in conformity with and not less than the pay, allowances and other benefits of the employees of corresponding status in

Government and MCD schools in adherence to Section 10(1) of the DSE Act; and

ii. direct Respondents No. 1 to 4 authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of DSE Act, against the erring Unaided Private Schools for violation of Section 10(1) of the DSE Act; and

iii. pass any such other or further orders or direction as this Hon'ble Court may in the facts and circumstances of the present case deem fit and appropriate, in favor of the beneficiaries whose cause is espoused by the Petitioner and against the Respondents; and

iv. allow the present PIL with cost in favour of the Petitioner."

2. Having heard the counsel for both sides and looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this petitioner is in search of implementation of the 7th Pay Commission recommendations for the teaching and non-teaching employees of the unaided Private Schools of Delhi.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 7th Pay Commission recommendations ought to be implemented by the unaided Private Schools of Delhi under Section 10 of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act, 1973). It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the issue of increase in the fees has nothing to do with the obligation to make the payment of salary as per 7th Pay Commission recommendations to the teaching as well as non-teaching staff of the unaided Private Schools of Delhi.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 - Government of NCT of Delhi submitted that a circular regarding payment of salary as per

7th Pay Commission recommendations dated 25th August, 2017 has already been issued. They are seeking compliance from approximately 1766 unaided Private Schools of Delhi. The inspection of 1415 schools has also been carried out in the eight Districts. Moreover, show cause notices have also been issued by respondent No.1 to over 300 unaided Private Schools and it has been mentioned in the said show cause notices that action under Section 24 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, which provide for de- recognition and/or taking over the management, will be initiated for non- compliance.

5. It is further submitted by the counsel for respondent No.1 that after issuance of notices by respondent No.1, few schools have already complied with implementation of the 7th Pay Commission recommendations. There still remain some schools which are yet to implement the 7th Pay Commission recommendations. Thus, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that they have already initiated action against such schools for not implementing the 7th Pay Commission recommendations for teaching and non-teaching employees.

6. We have also heard the counsel appearing for North Delhi Municipal Corporation i.e. respondent No.2. Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that there are approximately 117 unaided recognised Private Schools falling in the area under North Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Notices for the implementation of the 7th Pay Commission recommendations have already been issued and actions will be initiated in accordance with law if the directions are not complied with.

7. We have also heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for

respondent No.5 i.e. Action Committee Unaided Recognized Private Schools. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 has submitted that the obligation under Section 10 of the Act, 1973 cannot be complied with unless the rights of the schools enumerated under Section 17 of the Act, 1973 is allowed to be availed. Unaided Private Schools are not given any financial assistance by the Government. Out of the fees generated, not only salaries are to be paid but also other expenditures including maintenance of infrastructure are to be met. By virtue of the 7th Pay Commission recommendations the effect of increase in the salaries comes to approximately 25% which consequently requires rise in the fee structure as per the Act, 1973 especially, under Section 17 thereof. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.5 that time and again the unaided Private Schools have requested the Government of NCT of Delhi to permit them to increase their fee structure. However, the same is not being permitted by the Government of NCT of Delhi and instead several Circulars, Letters and Orders have been issued for strict implementation of 7th Pay Commission recommendations by the Government of NCT of Delhi. Consequently, all such Orders, Letters and Circulars have generated several litigations in this Court. A long list of writ petitions filed in this Court has been given by the learned senior counsel for respondent No.5 which read as under:-

    1.     5986/2019     Brilliant Convent v. DoE
    2.     3323/2019     Bal Bharti Public School, Pitampura v. DoE
    3.     4168/2019     Arwachin Bharti Bhavan v. DoE
    4.     4178/2019     Lancer Convent v. DoE
    5.     4179/2019     Bharat National Public School v. DoE
    6.     4966/2019     Chinmaya Vidyalaya v. DoE
    7.     3854/2019     K.R. Mangalam v. DoE
    8.     3855/2019     St. Margaret v. DoE
    9.     3847/2019     G.D. Goenka v. DoE


     10.    4576/2019    Modern Convent v. DoE
    11.    3853/2019    Venkateshwara Global v. DoE
    12.    4581/2019    Ramakrishna School v. DoE
    13.    3848/2019    Red Roses v. DoE
    14.    5295/2019    Vivekanand Public School v. DoE
    15.    5309/2019    Gyandeep Vidya Bhawan v. DoE
    16.    5820/2019    Vishal Bharti School v. DoE
    17.    5858/2019    Venkateshwara International School v. DoE
    18.    5868/2019    G.D. Goenka School v. DoE
    19.    5870/2019    Pragati Public School v. DoE
    20.    5873/2019    Greenfields Public School v. DoE
    21.    6000/2019    Rukmani Devi Public School v. DoE
    22.    6020/2019    The Srijan School v. DoE
    23.    6156/2019    Titiksha Public School v. DoE
    24.    6161/2019    Bhai Parmanand School v. DoE
    25.    6541/2019    MAMS, Pitampura v. DoE
    26.    6670/2019    Mount Abu Public School v. DoE
    27.    6673/2019    Rishabh Public School v. DoE
    28.    6684/2019    Delhi International School v. DoE
    29.    6707/2019    Evergreen Public School v. DoE
    30.    1488/2019    Birla Vidya Niketan v. DoE
    31.    1464/2019    N.K. Bagrodia Public School v. DoE
    32.    3034/2019    Sadhu Vaswani International v. DoE
    33.    3041/2019    Maharaja Agrasen Public School v. DoE
    34.    7724/2019    Vidhya Bharti School v. DoE
    35.    8231/2019    Delhi International, Dwarka v. DoE
    36.    10129/2019   Deep Public School v. DoE
    37.    10130/2019   M.M. Public School v. DoE

38. 10135/2019 Poorna Prajna Public School v. DoE

39. 10136/2019 M.M. Public School v. DoE

40. 11221/2019 Maxfort School, Pitampura

41. 11275/2019 Maxfort School, Rohini

42. 6419/2019 Lilawati Vidya Mandir

43. 9917/2019 Modern Era Convent School v. DoE

44. 9923/2019 Greenway Modern Sr. Sec. School v. DoE

45. 351/2019 DAV Model School v. DoE

46. 696/2019 Bal Bharati Public School v. DoE

47. 1144/2019 Ravindra Public School v. DoE

48. 4636/2019 New Green Field School v. DoE

49. 6225/2019 New Green Field School v. DoE

50. 7249/2019 Cambridge Foundation School v. DoE

51. 8073/2019 Darbari Lal DAV Model School v. DoE

52. 8462/2019 St. Froebel Senior Sec. School v. DoE

53. 8559/2019 Shaheed Rajpal Dav PS v. DoE

54. 9122/2019 Bhatnagar International School v. DoE

55. 2667/2019 St. Cecilia's Public School v. DoE

56. 2745/2019 Adarsh Public School v. DoE

57. 3988/2019 Mamta Modern Sr. Sec School v. DoE

58. 4010/2019 Bloom Public School v. DoE

59. 4623/2019 Shah International School v. DoE

60. 4639/2019 Kamal Public School v. DoE

61. 4651/2019 St. Peter's Convent School v. DoE

62. 4659/2019 Columbia Foundation Sr. Sec. School v. DoE

63. 5982/2019 Apeejay School, Saket v. DoE

64. 6358/2019 Apeejay School v. DoE

65. 6543/2019 Masonic Public School v. DoE

66. 6664/2019 Sachdeva Public School v. DoE

67. 11412/2019 Sumermal Jain School v. DoE

8. All the above-mentioned writ petitions are pending consideration in this Court. On one hand the Government of NCT of Delhi is not allowing the increase in the fee structure which is permitted by the law i.e. under the Act, 1973, and on the other hand insisting on the implementation of the 7th Pay Commission recommendations. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel for respondent No.5 that this writ petition may not be entertained by this Court in the light of the aforementioned pending writ petitions. Moreover, teaching and non-teaching staff are capable enough to approach to the Court and hence Public Interest Litigation is not tenable in law. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel for respondent No.5 that there are several other arguments that vest with them but as the aforesaid writ petitions are pending and the interim orders have already been passed to the effect that no coercive action shall be initiated against the unaided Private Schools, respondent No.5 is not going further into the detailed aspects of the law. Suffice it to say that this PIL is not tenable in law because the teaching and non-teaching staff of any unaided private school can always approach this Court in their individual capacity if

aggrieved by the non-implementation of the 7th Pay commission recommendations.

9. Having heard the counsel for both sides and looking to the legal obligation of the schools under Section 10 of the Act, 1973 as well as the rights of the schools under Section 17 of the Act, 1973 and taking note of the interim orders passed by this Court in several afore-mentioned litigations and also looking to the fact that any person who belongs to the teaching or non-teaching staff in unaided Private Schools of Delhi is always at liberty to approach this Court in individual capacity in accordance with law, we see no reason to entertain this Public Interest Litigation. As and when any aggrieved individual approaches this Court, the decision can be taken in accordance with law, rules, regulations and Government policy applicable to the facts of that case.

10. In view of the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE

C.HARI SHANKAR, J

NOVEMBER 20, 2019 ns