In a significant ruling by the Delhi High Court, a judgment has been delivered in the case involving Vinita Singh against Bharat Mata Saraswati Bal Mandir Senior Secondary School. The dispute pertained to salary entitlements of employees in private schools as per the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission. The Court’s decision mandates the school to re-calculate and pay arrears within a specified timeframe. This judgment sets an important precedent in the realm of salary disputes in private educational institutions. #DelhiHighCourt #LegalJudgment #SalaryDispute #PrivateSchools
Facts
- The reliefs claimed by the respondents in the writ petition were for payment of full salary as per recommendations of 7 CPC.
- The entitlement of the employees of a particular school was decided on the facts of those cases.
- The relevant judgments were considered in making the decision.
- Learned Coordinate Bench agreed and allowed the writ petitions on principle.
Arguments
- Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the issues raised have already been discussed in a previous case heard by the Coordinate Bench of the Court under HMJ Chandra Dhari Singh.
- Refers to the case of Anjali Vaid & Others vs Adarsh World School & Others decided on 20.11.2023 and the subsequent Division Bench case of Renu Arora & Others vs S.T. Margaret Senior Secondary School & Another.
- Emphasizes that arrears, if entitled, cannot be granted for more than three years prior to the filing of the petitions.
- The contention raised on behalf of the respondent/school by relying on Tarsem Singh and Rushibhai was rejected by the learned Coordinate Bench.
- The cases of Tarsem Singh and Rushibhai dealt with individual claims raised by employees for benefits due and payable while in service.
- In Rushibhai, the employees waited almost seven years to raise claims for benefits they believed were owed during their employment.
- Tarsem Singh involved a claim for disability pension raised long after the employee had been relieved from service.
- The judgement in DAV College Managing Committee case clarified that neither Rushibhai nor Tarsem Singh addressed benefits from Pay Commission recommendations.
Analysis
- The claims for benefits distinct from CPC recommendations require timely assertion by the employee.
- Supreme Court emphasized the need for employees to claim benefits promptly.
- Notification issued by Department of Education (DOE) directed schools to implement 7th CPC recommendations.
- Principle of arrears restricted to three years prior to court action highlighted by Supreme Court.
- Section 10 of DSE Act mandates private schools to provide benefits equal to government school employees.
- Certain judgments of Single Bench under appeal, with no stay orders issued.
- Salary of employees in schools governed by DSE Act, 1973 is determined by Section 10.
- Teachers in unaided private schools entitled to same pay as government school teachers as per DSE Act, 1973.
- The learned Division Bench of this Court referred to the case of Bharat Mata Saraswati Bal Mandir Senior Secondary School vs. Vinita Singh & Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3934.
- There has been no challenge to the judgment of the learned Division Bench before the Supreme Court.
- The case mentioned has not been challenged before the Supreme Court, as per the submission made.
- The provision in question establishes the minimum standards for salaries and benefits of employees in recognised private schools.
- It stipulates that the employees of private schools should not receive less than those of corresponding status in schools run by the appropriate authority.
- If the private school employees receive lower salaries and benefits, the appropriate authority must direct the managing committee of the school to bring them up to the level of the public school employees.
- Failure to comply with this directive will lead to non-compliance with the conditions for recognition of the school.
- The managing committee of aided schools is required to deposit their share of salaries and benefits with the Administrator, who will then disburse them to the employees.
- The contentions raised by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent are untenable.
- The arguments presented by Mr. Gupta are not supported by sufficient evidence.
- The respondent’s position lacks merit in light of the facts and legal precedents provided.
Decision
- The school is directed to re-fix the salaries and emoluments of the petitioners under the 7th CPC
- Arrears must be paid to the petitioners within three months from the date of the judgment
- Any delay beyond three months will incur an interest rate of 6% per annum
- Unpaid salary from June 2020 to August 2021 must also be paid within the specified period
- Arrears will not accrue interest if paid within the three-month period
- The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly
- Calculation and payment of arrears to be completed within three months from the judgment date
- No further orders are required in the present contempt petition
Case Title: SMT. DHEERAJ SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs. SH. NEERAJ CHANDRA & ORS. (2024:DHC:4049)
Case Number: CONT.CAS(C)-1368/2022
