JUDGMENT
1. The Appellants, in this appeal under Clause X of
the Letters Patent, have challenged the correctness of the
judgment and order dated 25th January, 2000 passed by a
learned Single Judge of this Court in CW No.3517/1996. The
learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by
Respondents No.1 to 17 who are employees of the Appellants.
2. Some time in 1968, the Appellants started a school
in the name of Shri Sanatan Dharam Lajwanti Adarsh
Vidyalaya. The school began with primary classes but during
the year a Nursery Wing was also added. The school was not
aided by Respondent Nos.18 or 19. Respondents No.1 to 17
joined the Nursery Wing of the aforesaid school on various
dates from 1971 onwards.
3. Sometime in 1971, the Appellants moved an
application for recognition of the school including its
Nursery Wing. The application was considered by the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short the MCD). A
resolution was passed by the Education Committee of the MCD
on 20th April, 1972 granting recognition to the school run
by the Appellants subject to certain conditions being
fulfillled by them. It is nobody’s case that the conditions
laid down were not fulfillled.
4. There cognition granted to the school run by the
Appellants continued from time to time and we were told by
learned counsel 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 effect from
27thApril, 1973. The grievance of Respondents No.1 to 17
was that in spite of recognition being granted to the
Nursery Wing of the school run by the Appellants, they were
not being given the scales of pay and allowances granted to
employees of other recognised unaided schools. According to
these Respondents, the Appellants were violating the
provisions of Section 10 of the Act by denying them the
appropriate scales of pay and allowances.
5. In this background, Respondents No.1 to 17 filed CW
No.3517/1996in this Court wherein they prayed for an
appropriate writ of mandamus for grant of parity of wages
and other emoluments including conditions of service as
applicable to employees of other recognised institutions.
By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single
Judge allowed the writ petition and held that the writ
petitioners were entitled to parity of wages and other
emoluments as their counterparts in recognised schools.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the Appellants have preferred
this appeal contending, inter alia, that the Nursery Wing of
the school run by the Appellants is not recognised and,
therefore, there can be no question of parity in wages and
other emoluments in favor of Respondents No.1 to 17.
7. We heard learned counsel for the parties on 8th
May, 2002 when judgment was reserved.
8. Learned counsel for the Appellants placed reliance
on a letter dated Nil which appears on page 80 of the paper
book to contend that the Nursery Wing of the school was not
recognised. As per this letter which bears an illegible
signature (with no name) and is a hand written document
purported to be written on behalf of the MCD, it isstated
that the Nursery Wing of the school run by the Appellants is
not recognised by the MCD as per the provisions of the Act.
We cannot place any credence on this letter for the reason
that the identity of 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.
9. The fact of the matter is that Respondents No.1 to
17 had positively averred that the Nursery Wing of the
school run by the Appellants is recognised as per the
provisions of the Act. This has not been controverter by
the Appellants either by showing that the conditions laid
down by the Education Committee of the MCD as per the
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 which is
dated 20th November, 1973 which makes a reference to another
resolution No.724 dated 8th October, 1973 whereby the
Department of Education of the MCD has granted recognition
with aid to the school run by the Appellants from 15th July,
1973 to 30th April, 1974 subject to certain conditions being
fulfillled.
10. None of these facts have been controverter in this
Court either by the MCD or by the NCT of Delhi. On the
contrary, our attention has been drawn to an affidavit dated
23rdApril,1998 filed by the MCD in CW No.5564/1997
(Parents Teachers Association of Shri Sanatan Dharam
Lajwanti Adarsh Vidyalaya v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.).
In this affidavit, it is stated, inter alia, by Shri B.C.
Narula, Deputy Education Officer (Grants) of the MCD as
follows:-
“At the outset, I state that at this
stage Answering Respondent is filing the
short Affidavit and reserve its right to
file Affidavit in detail should the need
so arise.
1. That recognition to the Shri
Sanathan Dharam Lajwanti Adarsh
Vidhyalaya AshokNagar, Delhi was
accorded without grant in aid initially
for the period w.e.f. 1/5/72 to 30/4/73
under the terms and conditions of
Municipal Corporation of Delhi. A copy
of and the recognition letter is
enclosed herewith as Annexure-R-1.
That recognition 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
granted from 1/5/73 to 30/4/74. The
Extension with recognition with aid was
granted on yearly basis till 30/4/83
and, regular recognition with grant in
aid was accorded w.e.f. 1/5/85 under
the following terms and conditions:-
(a) to (c) xxx xxx xxx”
11. In addition to the documents mentioned above, which
show that the school is a recognised one, we may also refer
to a few provisions of the Act which indicate that
Respondents No.1 to 17 are fully entitled to there lief
claimed by them.
12. Section 2(j) of the Act defines an “existing
school” as a recognised private school in existence at the
commencement of the Act. Section 2(u) defines a “school”
which includes a pre-primary, primary, middle and higher
secondary school. Section4(6) of the Act reads as
follows:-
“4. Recognition of schools –
(1) to (5) xxx xxx xxx
(6) Every existing school shall be
deemed to have been recognised under
this section and shall be subject to the
provisions of this Act and the rules
made there under:
Provided that where any such school does
not satisfy any of the conditions
specified in the proviso to sub-section
(1), the prescribed authority may
require the school to satisfy such
conditions and such other conditions as
may be prescribed, within a specified
period and if any such condition is not
satisfied, recognition may be withdrawn
from such school.
(7) & (8) xxx xxx xxx”
13. The Nursery Wing of the school run by the
Appellants was in existence prior to the commencement of the
Act. It was also recognised by the concerned authority,
namely, the Education Committee/Education Department of the
MCD. Keeping these facts in mind, it is clear on a bare
reading of the provisions mentioned above that since the
school run by the Appellants was an existing recognised
school, it was subject to the provisions of the Act which
were fully applicable to the school run by the Appellants.
This would sufficiently answer the legal question that is
raised before us. We, therefore, hold that at the relevant
time the Nursery Wing of the school run by the Appellants
was duly recognised and subject to the provisions of the
Act.
14. Learned counsel for Respondents No.1 to 17 then
placed reliance on Section 10 of the Act which reads as
follows:-
“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 school run by the appropriate
authority.
Provided that where the scales of pay
and allowances, medical facilities,
pension, gratuity, provident fund and
other prescribedbenefits 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 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 suchdirection 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.”
15. A plain reading of Section 10 of the Act makes it
clear that the employees of a recognised private school
shall be entitled to at least the same scale of pay and
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)of the Act as already held by us. The rights of
Respondents No.1 to 17 would be clearly governed by Section
10 of the Act. Consequently, we are of the view that the
learned Single Judge was right in granting the relief prayed
for by Respondents No.1 to 17.
16. Under the circumstances, we have no hesitation in
rejecting the appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed
but with no order as to costs.
17. CM Nos.10 and 11 of 2001 also stand disposed of.