Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 1 docs
The Delhi Laws Act, 1915

View the actual judgment from court
User Queries
Delhi High Court
Jyoti Bansal And Anr vs Managing Society And Anr on 26 September, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No. 7127/2012
%                                                    26th September, 2013

JYOTI BANSAL AND ANR                                 ..... Petitioners
                  Through:               Mr. Rajiv Bakshi, Advocate.
                  versus

MANAGING SOCIETY AND ANR              ..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate for R-
                           1to 3.
                           Mr. Kamal Bansal and Mr. Sachin
                           Chopra, Advocates for R-4 and 5.
                           Mr. S.C.Meena, DEO Zone-27.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.    Petitioners in this petition claim the relief of being granted monetary

benefits which are payable to teachers in government schools. This relief is

claimed as per Section 10(1) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 which

provides that teachers in private schools will at least get such monetary

emoluments which are being given to teachers in government schools.

2.    Counter-affidavit of respondent nos. 1 to 3 has been taken in Court

today. A reading of this counter-affidavit does not show as to why the

respondent nos. 1 to 3( the school) should not comply with the provision of

WPC 7127/2012                                                               Page 1 of 3
 Section 10(1), and which is a provision which mandates the schools to give

all necessary monetary benefits including pay and allowances, medical

facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund etc etc to teachers of private

schools as are given to teachers in government schools.

3.    Though counsel for respondent no.3-school argues paucity of funds to

not comply with the provision of Section 10(1), in my opinion, this is not a

valid defence as I have held in many cases, including the case of Meenu

Thakur Vs. Somer Ville School & Ors. W.P.(C) 8748/2010 decided on

13.2.2013, that paucity of funds is not a ground to not comply with the

requirement of law of payment of monetary benefits to teachers. A Division

Bench of this Court in LPA 286/2010 titled as Rukmani Devi Jaipuria

Public School Vs. Sadhna Payal & Ors. decided on 11.5.2012 has also

held that paucity of funds is not a ground not to make payments of monetary

benefits to teachers.

4.    In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of by

directing that petitioner nos. 2 to 6 will be granted all benefits in terms of

Section 10(1) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 by respondent no.3-

school. It may be noted that petitioner no.1 has already compromised with

the respondent no.3-school and therefore, no directions are passed so far as

the petitioner no.1 is concerned.
WPC 7127/2012                                                              Page 2 of 3
 5.    Petitioner nos. 2 to 6 be now paid arrears which are legally payable

within a period of three months from today alongwith interest at 5% per

annum simple from the date from which the amounts become due till the

date of payment. After a period of three months from today, petitioner nos. 2

to 6 will be entitled to interest at 7 ½ % per annum simple on the unpaid

amounts.    If there are any disputes as to calculations of arrears, then after

the petitioner nos. 2 to 6 receive amounts from the respondent no.3-school,

petitioner nos. 2 to 6 can point out deficiencies in the amounts paid, and if

still the petitioners are not paid the amounts due as per law, petitioner nos. 2

to 6 will make a representation to the Director of Education who will appoint

a nominee to determine the amounts which are in law payable to petitioner

nos. 2 to 6. The nominee of Director of Education will pass a speaking order

with respect to the disputed amounts after hearing both the parties or their

representatives, and which will be communicated to the petitioner nos. 2 to 6

as also respondent no.3-school.

6.    The writ petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of the aforesaid

observations, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




SEPTEMBER 26, 2013/ ib                        VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
WPC 7127/2012 Page 3 of 3