Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT GOA
M. S. Sonak, Bharat P. Deshpande, JJ.
Maria Aramita Vas & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Director Of Education & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1937 of 2021 (Filing No. ) with Writ Petition No. 1938 of 2021 (Filing No. ) with Writ Petition No. 1939 of 2021 (Filing No. ) with Writ Petition No. 1940 of 2021 (Filing No. ) with Writ Petition No. 1941 of 2021 (Filing No. ) with Writ Petition No. 1942 of 2021 (Filing No. ) with Writ Petition No. 1943 of 2021 (Filing No. )
Decided On : 22-09-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Mr. B. Fernandes and Mr. Vilas Pavithran, Advocates for the Petitioner., for the Appellant; Mr. S. G. Desai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shalaka Shelke and Mr. Tejas Rane, Advocates for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3., Mr. P. Arolkar, Additional Government Advocate for the State., for the Respondent

The central legal point established in the judgment is that a recognized private school is obligated to pay its employees salaries and allowances not less than those of the employees of the corresponding status in Government schools, as mandated by Section 13 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act, 1984.

Headnote:
Section 13 - Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act, 1984 - 13 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the provisions of Section 13 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act, 1984, which mandates that the scales of pay and allowances of employees of a recognized private school shall not be less than those of the employees of the corresponding status in schools run by the Government. The court also highlighted the interpretations and implications of the provisos to Section 13, which require the Director of Education to direct the managing committee of a recognized private school to bring the pay and allowances of its employees up to the level of those in Government schools, and the consequences of non-compliance with such directions.
Fact of the Case:

The Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to enforce Section 13 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act, 1984, claiming that the Respondents failed to comply with the mandate of paying salaries in line with the recommendations of the Seventh Pay Commission. The Respondents argued that the said school was never recognized, and therefore, Section 13 did not apply to them. The court examined various documents and communications to determine the recognized status of the school.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the said school was indeed a recognized school and, therefore, obligated to comply with the provisions of Section 13 of the said Act. The court directed the Director of Education to issue necessary directions to bring the pay and allowances of the school's employees up to the level of those in Government schools, and to act in accordance with the second proviso to Section 13 in case of non-compliance.
Issues: The main issue was whether the said school was a recognized private school and thus bound by the provisions of Section 13 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act, 1984.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the said school was a recognized school based on various documents and communications, and therefore, the provisions of Section 13 applied to the school. The court also emphasized that financial difficulties or the stoppage of grants by a third party could not be a ground for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 13.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and issued a writ of mandamus to the Director of Education to direct the school to bring the pay and allowances of its employees in line with those of Government schools. The Director was also directed to act in accordance with the second proviso to Section 13 in case of non-compliance.

JUDGMENT

M. S. Sonak, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The learned counsel agree that a common judgment and order could dispose of all these petitions since substantially the common issues of law and fact arise. Accordingly, the learned counsel suggest that Writ Petition No.1937 of 2021 (F) may be treated as the lead petition.

3. The Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to Respondent No.1 (Director of Education) to direct Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to comply with the mandate of Section 13 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act, 1984 (the said Act).

4. The Petitioners have pleaded that Respondent No.3 - said school, which is established and managed by Respondent No.2, is a recognized school in terms of Section 5 of the said Act. Section 13 of the said Act, inter alia, stipulates the scales of pay and allowances, pension, gratuity, provident fund, and other prescribed benefits of the employees of a recognized private school shall not be less than those of the employees of the corresponding status in the schools run by the Government.

5. The Petitioners claim that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, consistent with the mandate of Section 13 of the said Act, paid to the Petitioners, who are teachers employed in a recognized school, pay and allowances in terms of recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission. The Petitioners pointed out that such payment brought their pay and allowances on par with employees of the corresponding status in the Government run schools.

6. The Petitioners further pleaded that when it came to implementing the recommendation of Seventh Pay Commission Scales, however, Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 refused to pay in terms of Seventh Pay Commission Scales. The Petitioners submit that thereby the Petitioners began to receive pay and allowances lesser than those of the employees of the corresponding status in the schools run by the Government.

7. The Petitioners represented the Respondents, including Respondent No.1 (Annexure - H Colly dated 22.02.2021). Since there was no response, the Petitioners have instituted these petitions seeking enforcement of Section 13 of the said Act and consequent payment of pay and allowances in terms of the recommendations of the Seventh Pay Commission so that they are on par with the employees of the corresponding status in the schools run by the Government.

8. The defence of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is simply that Section 13 of the said Act applies to "recognized" schools. They submit that Respondent No.3 - School was never a recognized school since its inception in 1982. They submit that at no stage did Respondent Nos.2 and 3 apply for recognition under the provisions of the said Act. In the absence of Respondent No.3 - School being a recognized school, the provisions of Section 13 of the said Act would not apply. Mainly on this ground, Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 urged the dismissal of these petitions.

9. Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners, submits that the documents on record are sufficient to infer that Respondent No.3 - School ( the said school) is indeed a recognized school. In the alternate, he submits that since the said school was established after obtaining permission from the Director of Education, the same should be deemed a recognized school before the said Act entered into force. He relied on Rule 36 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Rules, 1986, to submit that all existing recognized schools have been recognized under the 1986 Rules.

10. Mr. Pereira referred to several documents on record, urging that the said school was indeed a recognized school. He also relied on All Goa Private Schools Pre-Primary and Primary Teachers' Association and others Vs State of Goa and others, 1990 Mh. L.J. 353. K. Krishnamacharyulu and others Vs Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering and another, (1997) 3 SCC 571. Raskar Vidya Damodar (alias) Smt. Bhujbal Vidya Vs Maharashtra Arogyamandal and others, 2000(4) L.L.N.771. Satimbla Sharma and o