Delhi High Court - Orders
(Direction) S. S Mota Singh Junior Model ... vs Directorate Of Education Government Of ... on 26 September, 2023
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma, Dharmesh Sharma
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 399/2021 and CM APPL. 38514/2021 (Interim Relief),
CM APPL. 37878/2022 (Stay), CM APPL. 41324/2022
(Direction)
S. S MOTA SINGH JUNIOR MODEL SCHOOL & ANR.
..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Romy Chacko, Mr. Sachin
Singh Dalal, Mr. Prashant
Kumar and Mr. Ananya
Moulilck, Advs.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF NCT
OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms.
Jyoti Tyagi, Ms. Manisha, Mr.
Hitanshu Mishra, Advs. for
DOE.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
ORDER
% 26.09.2023
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22 September 2021 rendered by the learned Single Judge requiring the appellants to ensure implementation of the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission1. While the appellants would contend that the aforesaid direction is unsustainable and infringes the rights of private unaided educational institutions as may be claimed to flow from Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, we 1 7th CPC This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2023 at 00:08:54 note that neither the aforesaid aspect nor the assertion of financial stringency has been held to be relevant insofar as implementation of the recommendations of the 7th CPC is concerned. We, for the purposes of completeness, notice the following decisions which have been rendered by this Court and which would appear to indicate that a consistent line has been taken that in terms of Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 19732, the educational institutions, including those which may be unaided, are obliged to implement the recommendations of the 7th CPC.
2. We take note specifically of the following decision rendered by the Division Bench of the Court in Greenfields Public School v. Anchla and Others3 where it was pertinently observed as follows: -
"23. It is an undisputed fact that the teachers working in aided schools/Government Schools have been granted benefit of higher pay scale as per the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission. The issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra and this Court in LPA 450/2022 titled Ahlcon Public School v. Omita Mago, has dealt with a similar controversy. Paragraph Nos. 5 to 11 of the judgment passed by this Court in the aforesaid LPA reads as under:
"5. Mr. Jayant Mehta, learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant School, contends that fee is the only source of revenue available to the Appellant School. He states that the land on which the School is being run was allotted by the DDA in the year 1988 and one of the conditions while allotting the land was that the School would admit 25% of the children from the Economically Weaker Sections and will not charge any fee from such children. He states that under Section 17(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, the School has to file with the Directorate of Education a full statement of the fees to be levied during the ensuing academic session and except with the prior approval of the Director, the school cannot charge any fee in excess of the fee as stipulated by the Department.2
Act 3 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5177 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2023 at 00:08:54
6. Mr. Mehta has drawn the attention of this Court towards the expenses which are to be incurred by the School in its day-today functioning and also the amount of pension, gratuity etc. which are to be paid to the retired teachers. He contends that the fee that is permitted to be charged by the school has to be approved by the Department and unless the Department of Education agrees for enhancement of fee, the school cannot increase its fee. He states that the school is in no position to pay the arrears of salaries.
7. Mr. Mehta points out that, as of today, for the year 2022-2023, the total revenue for the Appellant School is Rs. 23,01,35,984/- and the arrears of the 6th Pay Commission and the salaries as per the 7th Pay Commission and the other expenditure comes to Rs. 23,72,76,000/- He states that there is a deficit of Rs. 71,40,016/-. He states that until and unless the annual charges and development charges are increased by 10 per cent, it will take minimum five years for the Appellant School to pay the arrears of salaries.
8. Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 mandates that the scale of pay and allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and other prescribed benefits of the employees of any recognized private schools cannot be less than those working in the schools run by the Central Government, State Government, Municipal Corporation etc. Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 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 schools 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 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2023 at 00:08:54 of such school to 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 shall be 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, every month, its share towards pay and allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and other prescribed benefits with the Administrator and the 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."
9. Admittedly, the Appellant School is governed by the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and Section 10 of the Act applies with all force. Paucity of funds cannot be a ground for permitting the school not to pay the emoluments to its employees. The said issue has been dealt with and has been answered against the schools in several judgments passed by this Court [Refer to :
Kuttamparampath Sudha Nair v. Managing Committee Sri. Sathya Sai Vidya Vihar, W.P.(C) 928/2019 decided on May 06, 2021; Shashi Kiran v. Siiftlltarth International Public School, W.P.(C) No. 2734/2021 and Amrita Pritam v. S.S. Mota Singh Junior Model School, W.P.(C) 1335/2019 decided September 22, 2021; Shikha Sharma v. Guru Harkrishan Public School, W.P.(C) 3746/2020, decided on November 16, 2021].
10. All these judgments categorically negate the contention raised by the schools that they could not pay the teachers due to paucity of funds.
11. The Appellant School has no other alternative but to pay arrears of salary and emoluments to its employees as fixed by the 7th Pay Commission. There is no infirmity with the order passed by the learned Single Judge which requires interference by this Court."
24. In light of the aforesaid judgment delivered by this Court, the Respondents are certainly entitled to the pay scale recommended by the 7th Pay Commission.
xxx xxx xxx This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2023 at 00:08:54
35. In the considered opinion of this Court, especially in light of the fact that the School is also paying salaries to its employees as per the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission at present, the benefit of the same cannot be denied to the Respondent Employees who have attained the age of superannuation, only on the ground that they have superannuated and, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The present appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, the School is granted three months' time to comply with the order passed by the learned Single Judge."
3. We further find that there is no challenge to the validity of the statutory provisions contained in the Act. The submission of Mr. Chacko that the aforesaid statutory provision would not sustain in light of the rights of private unaided educational institutions which have been recognized by the Constitution Bench in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka4 is noticed only to be rejected since the declaration of law by the Supreme Court would not automatically result in the statutory provision being invalidated.
4. Consequently, and for all the aforesaid reasons, we find no ground to interfere with the decision of the Learned Single Judge.
5. The appeal fails and shall stand dismissed.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
SEPTEMBER 26, 2023 SU 4 (2002) 8 SCC 481 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2023 at 00:08:54