1. Closure of a recognized school without prior approval under Delhi Education Rules — Withdrawal of grant-in-aid — Dispute over absorption and salary of surplus staff. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 13 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 706
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hima Kohli, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
New Delhi Municipal Council and Another – Appellants
Versus
Manju Tomar And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 7440-7441 of 2012 with Civil Appeal No(s). 7442-7444 of 2012
Decided On : 28-08-2024
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
No recognised school or an existing class in school, except an unaided minority school, shall be closed without offering full justification and without prior approval of Director – Question of absorption only arises when closure of school is done in accordance with law.
No recognised school or an existing class in school, except an unaided minority school, shall be closed without offering full justification and without prior approval of Director – Question of absorption only arises when closure of school is done in accordance with law.
Subject
Service Law - Salary and Pension
Act Referred
DELHI EDUCATION ACT: S.69
DELHI EDUCATION RULES: R.55(1), R.46, R.47
DELHI EDUCATION RULES: R.55(1), R.46, R.47
Headnote
Civil Appeal Nos. 7442-7444 of 2012
Education – Closing down of school – [Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 – Rules 46 and 47] – No recognised school or an existing class in school, except an unaided minority school, shall be closed without offering full justification and without prior approval of Director – School in question being run by appellant-DSGMC was receiving 95% grant from NDMC and same was closed down without due approval of Director (Education), NDMC – As a consequence, appellant-DSGMC cannot be allowed to take shield of Rule 47 of Delhi Education Rules so as to claim that burden of re-employment and payment of salaries of surplus teachers and non-teaching staff upon closure of school would be that of NDMC – Question of absorption only arises when closure of school is done in accordance with law – Since closure of school in question was undertaken de hors Rule 46, onus to absorb surplus teaching and non-teaching staff would not be that of NDMC – Civil Appeals dismissed. (Paras 18, 19 and 20)
Civil Appeal Nos. 7440-7441 of 2012
Education – Closing down of school – [Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 – Rules 46 and 47] – Direction to NDMC to bear burden of the pay and other service benefits accruing to surplus school staff including pension pursuant to illegal closure of school by DSGMC – Clear direction was given by High Court in impugned Judgment that appellant-NDMC would be entitled to seek reimbursement of entire amount from DSGMC because it illegally closed school without prior approval of appropriate authority – Since principal amount has already been paid by appellant-NDMC, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with direction given by Delhi High Court for payment of interest to staff of school, in terms of impugned judgment – Appellant-NDMC shall pay all remaining dues including interest to respondents-staff of school, within a period of eight weeks – Appellant-NDMC shall be entitled to take recourse of appropriate remedy for reimbursement of amounts paid to respondents-staff of school from DSGMC, in case DSGMC voluntarily fails to reimburse said amount. (Paras 21, 24, 25 and 26)
Facts of the case:
Only issue which requires adjudication is as to whether the appellant-DSGMC has any valid ground so as to assail impugned judgment of the High Court dated 9th December, 2009, whereby 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 appellant-DSGMC.
Findings of Court:
Leave granted to the appellant-NDMC to seek impleadment in the pending Contempt Petition before the High Court of Delhi so as to seek a direction for reimbursement of these amounts.
Result : Civil Appeal Nos. 7442-7444 of 2012 dismissed and Civil Appeal Nos. 7440-7441 of 2012 disposed of with directions.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Yoginder Handoo, AOR Mr. Ritesh Khatri, AOR Ms. Babita Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Mrs. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Mr. M. C. Dhingra, AOR Mr. Ritesh Khatri, AOR Ms. Babita Sharma, Adv. Ms. Deepika, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Yoginder Handoo, AOR Mr. Ritesh Khatri, AOR Ms. Babita Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Mrs. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Mr. M. C. Dhingra, AOR Mr. Ritesh Khatri, AOR Ms. Babita Sharma, Adv. Ms. Deepika, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether surplus staff of a closed recognized school are entitled to government absorption under Rule 47, Delhi Education Rules, regardless of the legality of the closure. (Para 17 )
3. Rule 47 absorption benefits apply only to valid closures conducted with prior approval under Rule 46; illegal closures without such approval do not shift the burden to the government. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )
4. Absorption of surplus staff under Rule 47 of Delhi Education Rules is contingent upon the school closure being valid and approved under Rule 46. (Para 19 )
5. Appeals dismissed or disposed of — Staff entitled to dues — NDMC directed to pay interest and granted right to seek reimbursement from the school management. (Para 20 , 25 , 26 , 28 )
6. Does Rule 47 of the Delhi Education Rules provide for the absorption of staff when a school is closed without prior approval?
No. The court held that absorption under Rule 47 is only available if the closure is valid and carried out with prior approval of the Director as required by Rule 46. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )
7. Who bears the financial liability for staff salaries when a recognized school is closed illegally by the management?
The management of the school bears the obligation to pay salaries and service benefits if the school was closed without the required legal approvals, as the government's obligation to provide grant-in-aid ceases. (Para 13 , 19 )
8. Does the law of limitation bar the recovery of reimbursement if a court had previously left the issue of reimbursement open?
No. If a court order specifically leaves the question of reimbursement open, the bar of limitation will not prevent the party from seeking reimbursement of amounts paid. (Para 23 )
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. These appeals filed by New Delhi Municipal Council1[Civil Appeal No(s). 7440-7441 of 2012] (hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDMC’) and Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee2[Civil Appeal No(s). 7442-7444 of 2012] (hereinafter being referred to as ‘DSGMC’) arise out of a common judgment dated 9th December, 2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 441 and 442 of 2009 and hence, they have been heard and are being decided together.
Civil Appeal Nos. 7442-7444 of 2012
3. Facts in a nutshell relevant and essential for disposal of the appeals are noted hereinbelow.
4. The appellant-DSGMC was managing and operating a school, namely, Khalsa Boys Primary School (in short ‘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 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 Petitions3[WP(C) Nos. 9951-52/2005] in the High Court of Delhi. An ex-parte stay order dated 30th May, 2005 was passed by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Delhi, staying the proposed shifting of the school. However, in spite of the stay order 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 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 the appellant-DSGMC.
8. The teaching as well as non-teaching staff of the school filed fresh writ petitions4[WP(C) Nos. 13044-55/2006] in the High Court of Delhi, seeking a direction for absorption in a NDMC/Government aided school and also to command the appellant-DSGMC to pay them the sa
