Delhi High Court
Mrs. Geeta Radha Krishnan And Ors. vs St. Anthony???S Girls Senior Secondary ... on 7 August, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.6850 /2012
% 7th August, 2013
MRS. GEETA RADHA KRISHNAN AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate.
versus
ST. ANTHONY'S GIRLS SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL AND ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Dr. M.P. Raju, Advocate for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Abraham M. Pattiyani, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, standing
counsel with Ms. Bandana Shukla,
Advocate for respondent No.4.
Mr. S.C. Meena, DEO, Zone-27 in
person.
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, the petitioners who are teachers in the respondent No.2-school pray for implementation of the circular dated W.P.(C) No.6850 /2012 Page 1 of 5 11.2.2009 issued by the Director of Education for implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission Report with respect to teachers and employees of the schools.
2. The fact that Director of Education has issued a circular dated 11.2.2009 cannot be disputed. I have had occasions to deal with this aspect in many cases and one such case is the case titled as T.P.Singh Vs. Guru Harkishan Public School &Ors. in W.P.(C) No. 12132/2009 decided on 14.2.2013 wherein I have held that even a minority school is bound to make payment as per the circular of the Director of Education dated 11.2.2009.
3. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.2 till date, although this respondent was served way back for 5.3.2013. Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 orally pleads before me that the respondent No.2-school is unrecognized and unaided school and this has been informed to the petitioners in reply to the legal notice. It is argued that the provisions of Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 therefore cannot apply to the respondent No.2-school.
4. The argument as raised on behalf of respondent No.2 is misconceived for two reasons. Firstly, the Director of Education/respondent No.4 has filed its counter-affidavit in which it has been mentioned that in W.P.(C) No.6850 /2012 Page 2 of 5 fact respondent No.2-school is a recognized school and recognition was granted way back by the letter dated 2.6.1979. It is obvious therefore that deliberately a false stand is being taken up by the respondent No.2 before this Court. Secondly, in any case, even assuming for the sake of arguments that the respondent No.2-school is an unaided and unrecognized school, will not mean that the provisions of Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 will not apply inasmuch as the issue is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Social Jurist, a Civil Rights Group Vs. GNCT & Ors. 147 (2008) DLT 729. In this Public Interest Litigation case, the Division Bench of this Court has specifically laid down the ratio that the provisions of Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 will apply even to unrecognized schools which are run in Delhi.
5. In view of the above, writ petition is allowed and respondent No.2 is directed to make payment to the petitioners of all the benefits of the Sixth Pay Commission Report and as directed by the Director of Education vide its circular dated 11.2.2009. If on account of application of the circular dated 11.2.2009 of the Director of Education, certain consequential monetary reliefs have also to be paid, the same shall also be paid by the respondent No.2. Let payments be made to the petitioners by respondent W.P.(C) No.6850 /2012 Page 3 of 5 No.2 within a period of three months from today alongwith interest @ 6% per annum simple from the date from which the amount became due to the petitioners till the date the amounts are paid. In case, amounts are not paid within three months from today thereafter respondent No.2-school will be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum simple. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
6. Considering the fact that respondent No.2 has taken up a blatantly false stand before this Court of the fact that the school is not recognized in spite of the fact that recognition has been granted way back vide letter dated 2.6.1979 of the Director of Education, I deem it fit that contempt proceedings be initiated against the Managing Committee of the respondent No.2-school for seeking to overreach the Court by making false statements. Let the respondent No.2 within a period of one week from today file the names and addresses of the Members of the Managing Committee so that contempt notices can be issued by the Registry of this Court, without process fee, against such Members of the Managing Committee of the respondent No.2-school. In case, the respondent No.2-school does not file the details of the Members of the Managing Committee, the respondent No.4/Director of Education is directed to file within four weeks from today W.P.(C) No.6850 /2012 Page 4 of 5 the details i.e the names and addresses of the Members of the Managing Committee of the respondent No.2-school and thereafter the Registry, without process fee, will issue contempt notices to these Members of the Managing Committee.
7. List with respect to contempt proceedings against Members of the Managing Committee of the respondent No.2-school on 30th September, 2013.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J AUGUST 07, 2013 Ne W.P.(C) No.6850 /2012 Page 5 of 5