9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e closure of the school is done in accordance with law, which requires a full justification and prior approval of the Director as per Rule 46 supra. Since the closure of the school in question was undertaken de hors Rule 46, the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant- DSGMC that the onus to absorb the surplus teaching and nonteaching staff would be that of the NDMC, has no legal sanction and cannot be sustained. There are no merit in Civil Appeal preferred by the appellant-DSGMC, which are hereby dismissed. Seeking reimbursement of the entire amount from the DSGMC to staff - HELD THAT:- Since the principal amount has already been paid by the appellant-NDMC, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the direction given by the Delhi High Court for payment of interest to the respondents, i.e., staff of the school, in terms of the impugned judgment - it is directed that appellant-NDMC shall pay all remaining dues including interest to the respondents-staff of the school, within a period of eight weeks from today - It is clarified and reiterated that the appellant-NDMC shall be entitled to take recourse of the appropriate remedy for reimbursement of the amounts paid to r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der being granted and having been communicated, the appellant-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-inaid under Rule 69 of the Delhi Education Act and Rules, 1973 (hereinafter after being referred to as Delhi Education Rules ) on the reasoning that it was under an obligation to provide grant-inaid to schools which fell within its territorial jurisdiction and that the alternate location selected by the appellant-DSGMC, i.e., Mata Sundari College was outside the jurisdiction of the NDMC. 7. The High Court of Delhi disposed of the above writ petitions vide order dated 6th October, 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 the appellant-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 14th February, 2006 whereby, it invoked Rule 55(1) of the Delhi Educat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annum within twelve weeks. NDMC was further directed to regularly transfer pensionary amounts directly to the bank accounts of the petitioners No. 6 to 12(respondents No. 8 to 14 herein). However, NDMC was given liberty to seek reimbursement of the entire amount, as directed above, from the appellant-DSGMC which had closed the school without prior approval of the appropriate authority; (v) After re-employment, the tenure, seniority, pay scales and perquisites of the in-service staff i.e. the petitioners No. 1 to 5(respondents No. 1 to 5 herein) would not be adversely affected just because of closure of the school; (vi) Since the petitioners No. 1 to 5(respondents No. 1 to 5 herein) had not worked during the period 2006-2009, they would be entitled to receive only 50% of their pay and perquisites but this period would be counted for the purposes of their seniority and for computing their pensionary and other statutory benefits. 11. The said common order of the Division Bench of the High Court is assailed in these appeals preferred by the NDMC and the appellant-DSGMC, respectively. 12. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owned nor Government-aided. Furthermore, it was situated in Haryana and not in Delhi. Keeping the said response in mind, the DSGMC offered yet another employment at their various schools in Delhi, however, yet again none of these schools were either Government owned or Government-aided. Hence, the petitioners expressed their reservations in joining the said schools. Their concern primarily was that their service conditions and employment benefits should not be affected, which indeed, had been secured by the order of the Division Bench dated 09.12.2009 and 08.02.2010. The petitioners replied to the DSGMC on the same date on which they received the offer i.e. 28.08.2010. Their reply reads as under: The job offered to us is not as per the judgment of the Delhi High Court dt. 9/12/09 8/2/10, in which Para 15, 17 20 clearly says that job should be on same terms conditions on which they were employed when Primary school was owning in the NDMC area. So Please give us job in Govt/Govt-Aided School as per High Court judgement to avoid contempt of Supreme Court dt 9/8/10. We have also filed Affidavit in this connection. In The Supreme Court dt 27/8/10. Subsequent to this reply, there was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hi Education Rules, urged that where as a result of closure of a recognised school, or withdrawal of the recognition, the staff of the school becomes surplus, they may be absorbed as far as possible in a Government school or aided school. As per learned counsel, the teachers and other staff of the school who became surplus on account of closure of the school would be entitled to the benefit under Rule 47 of the Delhi Education Rules. Thus, in sum and substance, the contention of learned counsel representing the appellant-DSGMC is that the NDMC and the Director (Education), NDMC are primarily responsible for absorption and payment of salary and other service benefits to the staff, which became surplus on account of closure of the school. However, we find it difficult to sustain this argument which is fallacious on the face of record. The closure which is contemplated in Rule 47 of the Delhi Education Rules has to be a valid closure, i.e., having been carried out with the prior approval of the Director as provided under Rule 46 of the Delhi Education Rules which reads as under:- Rule 46. Closing down of a school or any class in a school - No managing committee shall close down a reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directed the appellant-NDMC to make payment of the entire arrears of the salary/pension and other retiral benefits to the respondents, i.e., staff of the school within three weeks. During the course of submissions, learned counsel representing the appellant-NDMC apprised the Court that the NDMC has already paid the principal amount to the staff of the school and now the only issue which survives is regarding the interest component which was kept open for further consideration. 23. During the course of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant-NDMC urged that since the reimbursement was made in the year 2010, DSGMC might take a defence of the recovery being barred by limitation. However, we are of the firm view that since this Court, while passing the order dated 7th July, 2010 has left the question of reimbursement of the amount being paid by the appellant-NDMC open, the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel representing the appellant-NDMC that its endeavour to seek reimbursement of the amount may be opposed with a plea of being barred by limitation, is unfounded by this Court. Since the issue of seeking reimbursement was left open with a specific observation being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
