[Delhi Education Rules] NDMC not responsible for salaries upon unlawful closure of School by DSGMC: Supreme Court

Supreme Court: In a civil appeal filed by New Delhi Municipal Council (‘NDMC’) and Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee (‘DSGMC’) against a judgment passed by the Delhi High Court, wherein the Court directed NDMC to reimburse the pay and perquisites including the pension and other benefits accruing to the staff of the school and then to recover the same from DSGMC, the division bench of Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ. held that NDMC would not be liable for absorption and payment of benefits to the excess staff of the school run by the DSGMC on account of the closure of the school done by the DSGMC without the prior approval of the NDMC.

Background:

DSGMC was managing and operating a school, namely, Khalsa Boys Primary School constructed by it in the premises of the Gurudwara Bangla Sahib, New Delhi. The school was initially started with 130 students, five teachers including the Headmistress, 2 peons and one helper. The school was receiving 95% grant from the NDMC, and the remaining 5% contribution was made by the DSGMC towards the budget of the school. Respondents 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were employed as the Headmistress, Assistant Teacher, Water Women, Sweeper-cum-Chowkidar, Chowkidar, respectively in the school.

Background:

It was claimed that over a period, the building of the school became old and dilapidated and also, considering the growing number of devotees visiting the Gurudwara, DSGMC was finding it difficult to run the school on a day-to-day basis. DSGMC, therefore, decided to shift the school from its existing location to a new premises i.e. at Mata Sundari.

Upon receiving information about the proposed shifting of the school by DSGMC, the Headmistress and other staff of the school challenged the proposal by filing Writ Petitions in the Delhi High Court. An ex-parte stay order dated 30-05-2005 was passed by the Single Judge of High Court. However, in spite of the stay order being granted and having been communicated, DSGMC demolished a substantial part of the school building thereby, making it non-functional. Consequent to the demolition of the school building, the NDMC stopped the grant-in aid under Rule 69 of the Delhi Education Act and Rules, 1973 (‘Delhi Education Rules’) on the reasoning that it was under an obligation to provide grant-in aid to schools which fell within its territorial jurisdiction and that the alternate location selected by the DSGMC, i.e., Mata Sundari College was outside the jurisdiction of the NDMC.

The High Court disposed of the above writ petitions vide order dated 6-10-2005 with a direction to the NDMC to consider and decide within four weeks as to whether ex-post facto sanction could be granted to DSGMC to close down the school since the same was being shifted to an area which was outside the jurisdiction of the NDMC, thus, the shifting could lead to the closure of the school. Following the direction given by the High Court, the NDMC issued an order dated 14-02-2006 whereby, it invoked Rule 55(1) of the Delhi Education Rules and noted that ex-post facto sanction could not be granted for running the school at the Mata Sundari College because it fell beyond its jurisdiction and consequently, it was decided to withdraw the recognition and to stop the grant-in-aid to the school being run by DSGMC.

The teaching as well as non-teaching staff of the school filed fresh writ petitions in the High Court, seeking a direction for absorption in a NDMC/Government aided school and also to command DSGMC to pay them the salaries and other service benefits. The High Court disposed of the petitions by directing DSGMC to pay the salaries to the serving staff and pensionary benefits to respondents 8 to 14 w.e.f. March 2006, till the NDMC passed a fresh order in terms of the decision. However, the serving teachers/staff and the retired teachers at the school challenged this decision before the Division Bench of the High Court by filing two Letters Patent Appeals, wherein NDMC was directed to reimburse the pay and perquisites including the pension and other benefits accruing to the staff of the school and then to recover the same from DSGMC. Thus, aggrieved, NDMC and DSGMC, filed the present appeal.

Analysis and Decision:

After perusing the impugned order, the Court said that the offer of re-employment made by DSGMC to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the school was not found to be bona fide as the same was not in conformity with the directions given by the High Court.

Concerning whether DSGMC has any valid ground to assail the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 9-12-2009, the Court took note of Rule 46 of the Delhi Education Rules, and said that no recognised school or an existing class in the school, except an unaided minority school, shall be closed without offering full justification and without the prior approval of the Director.

The Court said that the school in question being run by DSGMC was receiving 95% grant from NDMC, and the same was closed without due approval of the Director (Education), NDMC. Therefore, DSGMC cannot be allowed to take the shield of Rule 47 of the Delhi Education Rules to claim that the burden of re-employment and payment of salaries of the surplus teachers and the non-teaching staff upon closure of the school. The question of absorption only arises when the closure of the school is done in accordance with law, which requires full justification and prior approval of the Director as per Rule 46. Since the closure of the school in question was undertaken de hors Rule 46, the argument of DSGMC that the onus to absorb the surplus teaching and non-teaching staff would be that of the NDMC, has no legal sanction and cannot be sustained.

The Court emphasised that though the burden of the pay and other service benefits accruing to the surplus school staff including the pension was imposed on NDMC. However, the impugned judgment mentions that the NDMC would be entitled to seek reimbursement of the entire amount from the DSGMC, because it illegally closed the school without prior approval of the appropriate authority.

The Court also noted that the principal amount has already been paid by NDMC, thus there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the direction given by the Delhi High Court for payment of interest to the staff of the school, in terms of the impugned judgment.

Thus, the Court directed NDMC to pay all remaining dues including interest to the school staff within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order.

The Court clarified and reiterated that the NDMC is entitled to take recourse of the appropriate remedy for reimbursement of the amounts paid to school staff from the DSGMC, in case the DSGMC voluntarily fails to reimburse the said amount.

The Bench also granted leave to the NDMC to seek impleadment in the pending Contempt Petition before the High Court to seek direction for reimbursement of these amounts.