AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Appellants,in this appeal under Clause Xof theLetters Patent, have challenged the correctness ofthe judgmentandorder dated 25th January, 2000 passed bya learnedSingle Judge of this Court in CW No.3517/1996.The learnedSingleJudgeallowed the writ petitionfiledby Respondents No.1 to 17 who are employees of the Appellants.
Some time in 1968, the Appellants started a school inthename ofShri SanatanDharamLajwanti Adarsh Vidyalaya.The school began with primary classes but during theyear a Nursery Wing was also added.The school was not aided byRespondent Nos.18 or 19.Respondents No.1 to17 joinedthe Nursery Wing of the aforesaid school onvarious dates from 1971 onwards.
Sometime in1971, the Appellants moved an applicationforrecognition of the school includingits NurseryWing. The application wasconsideredbythe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi (for short theMCD). A resolutionwas passed by the Education Committee of the MCD on20th April, 1972 granting recognition to the schoolrun bytheAppellantssubject tocertainconditions being fulfilled by them.It is nobody''s case that the conditions laid down were not fulfilled.
There cognitiongranted to the school run bythe Appellantscontinued from time to time and we were toldby learnedcounsel for Respondents No.1 to 17 that even today the school, including the Nursery Wing thereof is recognised under the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (for short the Act) which came into force with effectfrom 27thApril, 1973.The grievance of Respondents No.1 to17 wasthatin spite of recognition beinggrantedtothe NurseryWing of the school run by the Appellants, they were notbeing given the scales of pay and allowances granted to employees of other recognised unaided schools.According to these Respondents,theAppellants wereviolating the provisions of Section 10 of the Act by denyingthemthe appropriate scales of pay and allowances.
In this background, Respondents No.1 to 17 filed CW No.3517/1996 in this Court wherein theyprayedforan appropriatewritof mandamus for grant of parity of wages andotheremolumentsincluding conditions ofserviceas applicabletoemployees of other recognised institutions. Bytheimpugnedjudgment and order, thelearned Single Judge allowedthewrit petition and heldthatthewrit petitionerswereentitledto parity ofwagesand other emoluments as their counterparts in recognised schools.
Feelingaggrieved, the Appellants havepreferred this appeal contending, inter alia, that the Nursery Wing of theschoolrunby the Appellants is notrecognisedand, Therefore,there can be no question of parity in wagesand other emoluments in favor of Respondents No.1 to 17.
Weheardlearned counsel for the partieson8th May, 2002 when judgment was reserved.
Learnedcounsel for the Appellants placed reliance ona letter dated Nil which appears on page 80 of the paper book to contend that the Nursery Wing of the school was not recognised. Asper this letter which bears anillegible signature(withno name) and is a handwrittendocument purportedto be written on behalf of the MCD, it isstated that the Nursery Wing of the school run by the Appellants is notrecognised by the MCD as per the provisions of the Act. Wecannot place any credence on this letter for the reason that theidentityof its author is not known, it is not known whether the author of the letter had the authority to issue it and the letter is undated.
The fact of the matter is that Respondents No.1 to 17hadpositivelyaverred that the Nursery Wingofthe schoolrunbythe Appellants is recognisedasperthe provisionsofthe Act.This has not been controverterby theAppellantseither by showing that the conditionslaid down bythe EducationCommittee of the MCDasperthe resolution dated 20th April, 1972 were not acceptable to the Appellants or were otherwise not complied with.Respondents No.1to 17 have placed another document on record whichis dated 20th November, 1973 which makes a reference to another resolutionNo.724dated8thOctober,1973wherebythe Departmentof Education of the MCD has grantedrecognition with aid to the school run by the Appellants from 15th July, 1973 to 30th April, 1974 subject to certain conditions being fulfilled.
None of these facts have been controverter in this Court either bythe MCD or by the NCT of Delhi. Onthe contrary, our attention has been drawn to an affidavit dated 23rdApril,1998filedby theMCDinCWNo.5564/1997 (ParentsTeachersAssociationof ShriSanatan Dharam LajwantiAdarsh Vidyalaya v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.). In this affidavit, it is stated, inter alia, by ShriB.C. Narula,DeputyEducationOfficer (Grants) of theMCDas follows:-
"At theoutset, I state thatat this stage Answering Respondent is filing the short Affidavit and reserve its right to file Affidavit in detail should the need so arise.
That recognitiontothe Shri Sanathan Dharam Lajwanti Adarsh Vidhyalaya AshokNagar, Delhi was accordedwithout grant in aid initially for the period w.e.f.1/5/72 to 30/4/73 under the terms andconditionsof MunicipalCorporation of Delhi.A copy of andthe recognition letteris enclosed herewith as Annexure-R-1.
Thatrecognition with grant in aid to Shri Sanathan Dharam Lajwanti Adarsh Vidhyalaya, Ashok Nagar, Delhi was accorded from 15/7/73 to 30/4/74, on the usual terms and conditions.
That again recognition with aid was grantedfrom1/5/73 to30/4/74. The Extensionwith recognition with aid was grantedon yearly basistill30/4/83 and,regular recognition with grantin aid wasaccorded w.e.f.1/5/85under the following terms and conditions:-
(a) to (c) xxx xxx xxx"
In addition to the documents mentioned above, which show that the school is a recognised one, we may also refer toa fewprovisionsof the Act which indicatethat RespondentsNo.1to 17 are fully entitled tothere lief claimed by them.
Section 2(j) ofthe Act defines an"existing school"as a recognised private school in existence atthe commencement ofthe Act.Section 2(u) defines a"school" which includesa pre-primary, primary, middleand higher secondaryschool. Section 4(6) of the Actreadsas follows:-
"4. Recognition of schools -
(1) to (5) xxx xxx xxx
(6) Every existing schoolshallbe deemedto have beenrecognisedunder this section and shall be subject to the provisions ofthis Act andtherules made there under:
Provided that where any such school does notsatisfyany oftheconditions specifiedin the proviso to sub-section (1), the prescribed authority may requiretheschooltosatisfy such conditions and such other conditions as may beprescribed, within aspecified periodand if any such condition is not satisfied, recognition may be withdrawn from such school.
(7) & (8) xxx xxx xxx"
The Nursery Wingofthe school runby the Appellants was in existence prior to the commencement of the Act. Itwas also recognised by the concernedauthority, namely,the Education Committee/Education Department of the MCD. Keepingthese facts in mind, it is clear onabare readingofthe provisions mentioned above thatsincethe schoolrunbythe Appellants was anexistingrecognised school,itwas subject to the provisions of the Act which were fully applicable to the school run by theAppellants. This wouldsufficiently answer the legal question thatis raisedbefore us.We, Therefore, hold that at the relevant time theNursery Wing of the school run by theAppellants wasdulyrecognised and subject to the provisionsofthe Act.
LearnedcounselforRespondents No.1 to17 then placedrelianceon Section 10 of the Act whichreadsas follows:-
"10. Salariesof employees - (1) The scalesof pay and allowances,medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fundandother prescribed benefitsof the employeesof a recognisedprivate schoolshall not be less than thoseof the employeesof the corresponding statusin school run by the appropriate authority.
Providedthatwhere the scales of pay andallowances, medical facilities, pension,gratuity, provident fund and other prescribed benefits of the employeesofany recognisedprivate schoolare lessthan thoseof the employees of the corresponding status in the schoolsrunbythe appropriate authority, the appropriateauthority shalldirect, in writing, themanaging committeeofsuch school to bring the sameupto the level of thoseof the employees of the corresponding status in schools run bythe appropriate authority:
Providedfurtherthat the failureto comply with such direction shall be deemedto be non-compliancewith the conditions for continuing recognition of an existing school and the provisions of section 4 shall apply accordingly.
(2) Themanaging committeeofevery aided school shall deposit, every month, its share towards pay and allowances, medicalfacilities, pension,gratuity, providentfundand otherprescribed benefitswith the Administrator and the Administratorshall disburse, orcause to be disbursed, within the first week of every month, thesalaries and allowances to the employees of the aided schools."
Aplain reading of Section 10 of the Act makesit clear thattheemployees of a recognisedprivate school shall beentitledto at least the same scale ofpayand allowances which are granted to employees of a school having a corresponding status.The facts of the present case fully come with in the four corners of Sections 2(j),2(u),and 4(6) ofthe Actas already held by us. Therightsof RespondentsNo.1 to 17 would be clearly governed by Section 10 ofthe Act.Consequently, we are of the view thatthe learned Single Judge was right in granting the relief prayed for by Respondents No.1 to 17.
Underthe circumstances, we have no hesitationin rejectingthe appeal.The same is, accordingly,dismissed but with no order as to costs.
CM Nos.10 and 11 of 2001 also stand disposed of.