9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, five teachers including the Headmistress, 2 peons and one helper. The school was receiving 95% grant from the NDMC and remaining 5% contribution was made by the appellant-DSGMC towards the budget of the school. Respondents No. 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were employed as the Headmistress, Assistant Teacher, Water Women, Sweeper-cum-Chowkidar, Chowkidar, respectively in the school. 5. It is claimed that over a period of time, the building of the school became old and dilapidated and also, considering the growing number of devotees visiting the Gurudwara, the appellant- DSGMC was finding it difficult to run the school on a day-to-day basis. The appellant-DSGMC, therefore, decided to shift the school from its existing location to a new premises i.e. at Mata Sundari College, Old Building, New Delhi. Since the school was receiving 95% grant from the NDMC, the appellant-DSGMC moved the NDMC seeking permission to shift the school. 6. Upon receiving information about the proposed shifting of the school by the appellant-DSGMC, the Headmistress and other staff of the school challenged the said proposal by filing Writ Petitions WP(C) Nos. 9951-52/2005 in the High Court of Delhi. An ex-parte stay or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether ex-post facto sanction in terms of Rule 46 of Delhi Education Rules could be granted to the appellant-DSGMC to close down the school and if not why; ii) The appellant-DSGMC would continue to pay the salaries to the serving staff and pensionary benefits to petitioners No. 6 to 12(respondents No. 8 to 14 herein) w.e.f. March, 2006, till the NDMC passed a fresh order in terms of the decision. 10. The above order of the learned Single Judge was assailed by the then serving teachers/staff and the retired teachers of the school before the Division Bench of the High Court by filing two Letters Patent Appeals LPA No. 441 of 2009 in Ms. Manju Tomar & Ors. v. NCT & Ors. & LPA No. 442 of 2009 in Ms. Santosh Kaur & Ors. v. NCT & Ors., which were allowed vide order dated 9th December 2009, with the following directions: (i) Pay the arrears of salary; (ii) Employ the petitioners No. 1-5(respondents No. 1-5 herein) in a Government or Government-aided school within twelve weeks of the order dated 9th December, 2009 i.e. by 8th March, 2010; (iii) Otherwise, the DSGMC would be required to pay the petitioners No. 1-5(respondents No. 1-5 herein) the full pay and all perquisites from 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt-DSGMC. (iv) That the appellant-DSGMC did not challenge the decision of the NDMC dated 14th February, 2006, withdrawing the recognition and the grant-in-aid, before any forum. (v) That the employees of the school have filed a Contempt Petition Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 805 of 2016 in Manju Tomar & Ors. v. Manjit Singh GK & Ors. before the High Court of Delhi wherein, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 1st October, 2019 observed as below: - "In effect, the respondent no. 4 in the LPA namely: Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee, Guru Gobind Singh Bhawan, Gurdwara Rakabganj, New Delhi-110001, was required to do the following: i) pay the arrears of salary; ii) employ the petitioners in a Government or Government-aided school within twelve weeks of the order dated 09.12.2009 i.e. by 08.03.2010. iii) otherwise, the DSGMC would be required to pay the petitioners the full pay and all perquisites from 04.03.2010 onwards. Admittedly, the employment was not done till 30.01.2018. There is a delay of roughly eight years, short of 36 days. Respondent no. 4-DSGMC had offered employment to the petitioners by its letter dated 17.08.2010 calling upon them to join ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers, who shall supply their respective bank account details, to Respondent no.4-DSGMC directly as well as through counsel. Respondent no. 4 shall furnish the computation of the amounts due to each of the petitioners within the next two weeks and shall pay the due amounts by 13.12.2019." ( emphasis added ) 14. The appellant-DSGMC assailed the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge by filing a Letters Patent Appeal LPA No. 732 of 2019 in Majinder Singh Sora & Anr. v. Manju Tomar & Ors. which was dismissed vide order dated 15th March, 2023 for want of prosecution. Hence, the order dated 1st October, 2019 has attained finality. 15. A bare perusal of the above order would clearly indicate that the offer of re-employment made by the appellant-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. 16. Thus, in the present appeals, the only issue which requires adjudication is as to whether the appellant-DSGMC has any valid ground so as to assail the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 9th December, 2009, whereby the NDMC was directed to reimburse the pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nteaching staff upon closure of the school would be that of the NDMC. The question of absorption only arises when the 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. 20. As a result, we do not find any merit in Civil Appeal Nos. 7442-7444 of 2012 preferred by the appellant-DSGMC, which are hereby dismissed. No costs. Civil Appeal Nos. 7440-7441 of 2012 21. The NDMC, being the appellant in these appeals, is primarily aggrieved of the direction given by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment dated 9th December, 2009, that it should bear the burden of the pay and other service benefits accruing to the surplus school staff including the pension pursuant to the illegal closure of the school by the DSGMC. However, we may note that a clear direction was given by the High Court in the impugned judgment that the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
