A significant judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of the school closure reimbursement dispute involving DSGMC and NDMC. The court examined the legality of the school closure and the responsibility for reimbursement of staff pay, perquisites, and benefits. Dive into the details of the case and the court’s ruling in this insightful blog post.
Facts
- The appellant-DSGMC decided to shift the Khalsa Boys Primary School due to the deteriorating condition of the building and increasing number of devotees visiting the Gurudwara.
- The NDMC was given liberty to seek reimbursement from the appellant-DSGMC for closing the school without approval.
- The in-service staff’s tenure, seniority, pay scales, and perquisites were ensured not to be adversely affected by the school closure.
- Staff who did not work during 2006-2009 were entitled to 50% pay and perquisites but their seniority and benefits computation would consider this period.
- Appellant-DSGMC offered employment at Guru Tegh Bahadur International School in Haryana, which was declined by the staff as it didn’t meet court directions.
- An ex-parte stay order was issued against shifting the school. The NDMC stopped grant-in-aid after the school’s demolition.
- The High Court directed NDMC to consider ex-post facto sanction for school closure due to shifting outside NDMC jurisdiction.
- NDMC’s order to withdraw recognition and stop grant-in-aid was based on Rule 55(1) of Delhi Education Rules as the school’s new location was outside NDMC jurisdiction.
- The DSGMC was directed to pay salaries to serving staff and pensionary benefits to the petitioners from March 2006.
- Failure to do so would result in the DSGMC paying full pay and perquisites from March 2010 onwards.
- A fresh order was to be passed by NDMC on whether ex-post facto sanction could be granted to close down the school.
- DSGMC was obligated to reimburse pay and service benefits to teaching and non-teaching staff of the school.
- DSGMC was found in breach of orders by not re-employing all petitioners within the specified time frame.
- The demolition was carried out despite an interim stay order issued by the Delhi High Court.
- A job offer was not in accordance with the High Court’s judgment, leading petitioners to seek employment in a Govt/Govt-Aided School to avoid contempt.
- The Division Bench directed the payment of arrears of salary and employment of petitioners in a Govt/Govt-Aided school within twelve weeks of the order.
- NDMC was to pay pensionary amounts directly to the bank accounts of petitioners.
- The recognition and grant for the school were withdrawn by NDMC in 2006, leading to DSGMC no longer receiving 95% grant for running the school.
- The appellant-DSGMC did not challenge NDMC’s decision to withdraw recognition and grant.
- Employees filed a Contempt Petition for non-compliance with court orders.
- The Delhi High Court observed a delay of roughly eight years in fulfilling the required actions.
Also Read: Equality in Employment: Smt. K.M. Vaghela vs. Department of Telecommunication
Arguments
- The issue at hand is whether the appellant-DSGMC has valid grounds to challenge the High Court’s judgment directing NDMC to reimburse staff pay, perquisites, pension, benefits, and recover the same from DSGMC.
- Appellant-DSGMC argues that Rule 47 of the Delhi Education Rules entitles surplus staff from closed schools to benefits, including absorption in government or aided schools.
- Appellant-NDMC has already paid the principal amount to staff but the interest component remains under consideration.
- Appellant-DSGMC contends that NDMC and Director (Education), NDMC are primarily responsible for staff absorption and service benefits post school closure.
- The DSGMC was urged to consider that the reimbursement was made in 2010
- There might be a defence of the recovery being barred by limitation
Also Read: Landmark Judgement by the Supreme Court: Case between KECML and KPCL
Analysis
- The closure of the school by the appellant-DSGMC was done illegally without seeking permission from the NDMC, leading to the closure of the school.
- The High Court directed the NDMC to bear the burden of pay and service benefits for the surplus school staff, including pension, due to the illegal closure.
- Absorption of surplus staff only arises when the closure is done in accordance with the law, with full justification and prior approval of the Director as per Rule 46.
- The appellant-NDMC was directed to make payments of arrears within three weeks, making the argument for the burden of re-employment and salaries of surplus staff on NDMC invalid.
- The closure contemplated in Rule 47 of the Delhi Education Rules requires prior approval of the Director as per Rule 46, which was not obtained in this case.
- As the closure was not in compliance with Rule 46, the argument that NDMC should absorb surplus staff has no legal basis.
- The appellant-DSGMC’s appeals were dismissed as the closure was not done in accordance with the law and the NDMC cannot be burdened with the responsibility as per Rule 47.
- Closing a recognized school or class without full justification and prior approval of the Director is a violation of Rule 46.
- The school run by appellant-DSGMC, receiving 95% grant from NDMC, was closed without the Director’s approval.
- The principal amount has already been paid by the appellant-NDMC.
- The Delhi High Court’s direction for payment of interest to the staff of the school should not be interfered with.
- The issue of seeking reimbursement was left open with a specific observation in the order dated 7 July 2010.
- The bar of limitation does not apply to the appellant-NDMC in seeking reimbursement from the DSGMC for the amounts paid to the school staff.
Also Read: Supreme Court Judgment: Contempt Proceedings against Patanjali and Baba Ramdev
Decision
- The petitioners are entitled to full pay and all perquisites from 04.03.2010 onwards till 30.01.2018.
- NDMC is granted leave to seek impleadment in the pending Contempt Petition No. 805 of 2016 before the High Court of Delhi for reimbursement of the amounts.
- The money owed to the petitioners must be paid within four weeks of receiving this order.
- Civil Appeal Nos. 7440-7441 of 2012 are disposed of as per the mentioned terms.
- NDMC has the right to seek reimbursement from DSGMC if the latter fails to reimburse the paid amounts.
- NDMC is directed to pay all remaining dues, including interest, to the school staff within eight weeks from the date of this order.
Case Title: NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL . Vs. MANJU TOMAR (2024 INSC 635)
Case Number: C.A. No.-007440-007441 – 2012
