Full Judgment Text
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 601/2022 & CM APPLs. 45446-45447/2022
BHARAT MATA SARASWATI BAL MANDIR
SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Parvinder Chauhan, Advocate
with Ms.Aakriti Garg, Advocate.
versus
VINITA SINGH AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi and Ms.Manisha,
Advocates for R-4&5.
th
% Date of Decision: 07 July, 2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
J U D G M E N T
MANMOHAN, J: (ORAL)
CM APPL. 45446/2022
Keeping in view the averments in the application, the delay in filing
the present appeal is condoned.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
LPA 601/2022 & CM APPL.45447/2022
1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order
th
dated 14 December, 2021, whereby the writ petition filed by three teachers
th
seeking payment of 7 Central Pay Commission (hereinafter referred to as
th
‘7 CPC’) has been allowed.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:10.07.2023
17:32:05
LPA 601/2022 Page 1 of 6
RELEVANT FACTS
2. The relevant facts are that respondents 1 to 3 have been working in
th
the appellant school on regular basis. Pursuant to recommendations of the 7
CPC, respondent No.5/Directorate of Education (DOE) issued notification
th
dated 17 October, 2017, whereby all the private recognized schools were
th
asked to implement the same. Since the benefit of the 7 CPC was not
extended by the appellant school, Respondents 1 to 3 approached this Court
by filing a writ petition.
th
3. By the impugned judgment dated 14 December 2021, the learned
Single Judge directed the school to grant benefits/salaries to respondents 1 to
th
3 herein, in terms of provisions of the 7 CPC and further held that they
st
were entitled to arrears thereof w.e.f. 1 January 2016. Thus, the present
appeal has come to be filed by the school.
ARGUMENTS BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-school submits that the appellant-
school is not amenable to writ jurisdiction as it is an unaided private school.
In support of his submission, he relies upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court in St. Mary’s Education Society and Another Vs. Rajendra Prasad
Bhargava and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1091 , wherein it has been
held as under:-
“ 36. It needs no elaboration to state that a school affiliated to CBSE which is
unaided is not a State within Article 12 of the Constitution of India
[see Satimbla Sharma v. St Paul's Senior Secondary School, (2011) 13 SCC
760 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 75]. Nevertheless the school discharges a public
duty of imparting education which is a fundamental right of the citizen
[see K. Krishnamacharyulu v. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engg.,
(1997) 3 SCC 571 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 841]. The school affiliated to CBSE is
therefore an “authority” amenable to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India [see Binny Ltd. v. V. Sadasivan, (2005) 6 SCC 657 :
2005 SCC (L&S) 881]. However, a judicial review of the action challenged
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:10.07.2023
17:32:05
LPA 601/2022 Page 2 of 6
by a party can be had by resort to the writ jurisdiction only if there is a public
law element and not to enforce a contract of personal service. A contract of
personal service includes all matters relating to the service of the employee
— confirmation, suspension, transfer, termination, etc. [see Apollo Tyres
Ltd. v. C.P. Sebastian (2009) 14 SCC 360 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 358 : (2010)
1 SCC (L&S) 359].”
5. He further states that even if the writ petition is held to be
st
maintainable, no direction for payment of arrears thereof w.e.f. 1 January,
2016 could have been passed, inasmuch as, the petitioners had approached
st
this Court by preferring the writ petition on 31 August, 2020. He submits
that the claim for recovery of arrears beyond the period of three years is
barred by law of limitation. In support of his submission, he relies upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others Vs. Tarsem
Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 , wherein it has been held as under:-
“ 7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on
the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ
petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the
Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases
relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a
continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking
remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced,
if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an
exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or
administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if
the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then
the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment
or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it
does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues
relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render
the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the
consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the
principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a
consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to
arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ
petition. ”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:10.07.2023
17:32:05
LPA 601/2022 Page 3 of 6
6. He also relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rushibhai
Jagdishbhai Pathak Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 641 , wherein the judgment of the Union of India and Others
Vs. Tarsem Singh (supra) has been reiterated. The relevant portion of the
judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“ 16. In the facts of the present case, it is accepted that the respondent-
Corporation had accepted the interpretation rendered by the High Court of
Gujarat to the Scheme whereby the appellants, on financial upgradation,
would be entitled to the higher grade pay-scale of the next promotional post,
which is Rs. 5,000-8,000/- in the present case. As noted above, the impugned
judgment of the Division Bench accepts the said position and grants the
appellants the said pay-scale but restricts the benefit from the date of the
judgment of the Single Judge in the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants, that
st
is, with effect from 31 July 2018. The Division Bench should not have taken
the date of the decision/judgment of the Single Judge for grant of the said
benefit in view of the decision and ratio in Tarsem Singh (supra) which has
been followed in several other decisions. That apart, the date of the decision
of the Single Judge is a fortuitous circumstance. Only the date of filing of the
writ petition is relevant while examining the question of delay and laches or
limitation. The appellants would, in consonance with the case law referred to
above, be entitled to the arrears for three years before the date of filing of the
Writ Petitions. ”
COURT’S REASONNING
AS THE WRIT INVOLVES A PUBLIC LAW ELEMENT, IT IS
MAINTAINABLE
7. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the
view that the writ petition filed by the three teachers is maintainable as it
involves a public law element, inasmuch as, the original writ petitioners
were seeking the implementation of Section 10(1) of the Delhi School
Education Act, 1973 (DSE Act, 1973) which 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……………… ”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:10.07.2023
17:32:05
LPA 601/2022 Page 4 of 6
8. In fact, the writ petitioners by way of the underlying writ petition
th
were also seeking enforcement of circular/order/notification dated 17
October, 2017 issued by DOE directing the schools to make payment of
th
salaries to teachers in accordance with 7 CPC. In fact, in the case of St.
Mary’s Education Society (Supra) , Supreme Court has categorically held as
follows:
“ 75.1 . An application under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable
against a person or a body discharging public duties or public functions.
The public duty cast may be either statutory or otherwise and where it is
otherwise, the body or the person must be shown to owe that duty or
obligation to the public involving the public law element. Similarly, for
ascertaining the discharge of public function, it must be established that the
body or the person was seeking to achieve the same for the collective benefit
of the public or a section of it and the authority to do so must be accepted
by the public.”
9. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the writ petition filed by
teachers is maintainable.
WRIT IS NOT BARRED BY DELAY AND/OR LACHES
10. This Court is further of the view that the writ petition filed by the
original writ petitioners is not barred by delay and/or laches, inasmuch as,
the cause of action is a recurring one.
11. In Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh (supra), the Supreme Court has
itself clarified by way of an example that if the issue relates to payment of
pay, relief should be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect third party
rights.
12. Further, the judgment in Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak Vs.
Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation (supra) offers no assistance to the
appellant as it deals with a case of higher grade pay scale in the next
promotional post and which is not the case in the present instance.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:10.07.2023
17:32:05
LPA 601/2022 Page 5 of 6
CONCLUSION
13. To conclude, it is reiterated that the reliefs claimed by the respondents
in the writ petition were for payment of full salary as per recommendations
th
of 7 CPC. Section 10 of the DSE Act provides that the scale of pay and
allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and other
prescribed benefits of a recognized private school shall not be less than
those of the employees of the corresponding status in the government
school. The DOE in accordance with the DSE Act, 1973 has issued
th
notification dated 17 October, 2017 directing that all recognized schools
th
shall implement the recommendations of 7 CPC. In view thereof, it is the
undisputed position of law that teachers of unaided private schools are
entitled to the same pay and emoluments as those of government schools, in
terms of the obligation enjoined upon the private recognized schools under
the DSE Act, 1973. The schools cannot evade their statutory responsibility
and are bound to pay the statutory dues.
14. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the present appeal is
bereft of merit. Accordingly, the present appeal and application are
dismissed but with no order as to cost.
MANMOHAN, J
MINI PUSHKARNA, J
JULY 7, 2023
TS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:10.07.2023
17:32:05
LPA 601/2022 Page 6 of 6