Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 Supreme(Cal) 709

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Rakesh Tiwari And Debi Prosad Dey, JJ.
Convent of Our Lady Providence Girls High School & Ors. – Petitioners
Vs.
Ratna Mitter & Ors. – Respondents
G.A 3118 of 2016, APO 269 of 2016, W.P. 449 of 2013
GA 3119 of 2016, APO 271 of 2016, WP 455 of 2013
GA 3120 of 2016, APO 273 of 2016, WP 450 of 2013
GA 3122 of 2016, APO276 of 2016, WP 453 of 2013
GA 3133 of 2016, APO 277 of 2016, WP 452 of 2013
GA 3135 of 2016, APO 272 of 2016, WP 451 of 2013
GA 3136 of 2016, APO 270 of 2016, WP 454 of 2013
GA 3138 of 2016, APO274 of 2016, WP 456 of 2013
Decided on : 23-12-2016

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Baid, Adv. Mr. Soumya Majumder. Adv. Ms. A. Lala Sengupta, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Adv. Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharya, Adv.

In cases of continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking a remedy, but the consequential relief of recovery of arrears should be restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of filing the writ petition.

Headnote:
SCHOOL SALARIES - PAYMENT OF ARREARS - LIMITATION - 3 YEARS' ARREARS GRANTED - NO INTEREST ON ARREARS - WEST BENGAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION - EXECUTIVE ORDER DATED MAY 29, 2002 - SECTION 10 OF THE DELHI SCHOOL EDUCATION ACT - UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VS. TARSEN SINGH - 2008 VOLUME 8 SCC 648
Fact of the Case:

The respondent, a teacher at the appellant school, filed a writ petition seeking payment of arrears of salary and Dearness Allowance (DA) from June 2002 to March 2012. The trial court allowed the petition and directed the appellants to pay the arrears with interest. The appellants appealed, contending that they could not pay the arrears from 2002 as they did not collect sufficient fees from students and that the trial court erred in not considering the limitation period.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appellants were liable to pay the arrears of salary and DA, but only for a period of 3 years prior to the date of the writ petition, without any interest. The court relied on the decision in Union of India and Ors. v. Tarsen Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648, which held that in cases of continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking a remedy, but the consequential relief of recovery of arrears should be restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of filing the writ petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellants were liable to pay the arrears of salary and DA from 2002. 2. Whether the trial court erred in not considering the limitation period.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellants were liable to pay the arrears of salary and DA, but only for a period of 3 years prior to the date of the writ petition, without any interest. 2. The court relied on the decision in Union of India and Ors. v. Tarsen Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648, which held that in cases of continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking a remedy, but the consequential relief of recovery of arrears should be restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of filing the writ petition.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part. The order of the trial court was modified to restrict the relief relating to arrears to only 3 years prior to the date of the writ petition, without any interest.

Debi Prosad Dey, J. :

1. Preparation of formal paper book is dispensed with on the prayer of learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. The appeal is taken up for hearing along with the stay application.

2. The writ petitioner (namely respondent no.1 in the appeal) had filed a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents particularly the respondent no. 4, 5 and 6 namely the authority of Convent of Our Lady providence Girl’s High School, Calcutta to release the arrear of balance salaries of the petitioner as well as the Dearness Allowance dues from June, 2002 to March, 2012 along with interest immediately and forthwith.

3. Learned trial Judge accordingly allowed the writ application being no. 449 of 2013 directing the respondents (namely the present appellants) to take appropriate steps to pay the petitioner both the difference in salaries along with the Dearness Allowance as revised till date within a period of 16 weeks from the date of communication of such order and to be further paid the revised salary and Dearness Allowance by law fixed regularly month by month.

4. Learned trial Judge also disposed of the writ petition no. 450 of 2013, 451 of 2013, 452 of 2013, 453 of 2013, 454 of 2013, 455 of 2013 and 456 of 2013 along with writ petition no. 449 of 2013.

5. By an executive order dated May, 29, 2002 the Dearness Allowance getting schools recognized by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education were directed to pay the Dearness Allowance not less than what the teaching and non-teaching employees of the recognized government aided schools are being paid keeping in view the direction issued to the Anglo Indian School. The reasons for issuing such executive order has been quoted by the learned trial Judge as follows:-

“The reasons for issuing the Executive Order dated May, 29, 2002 stated in the order, are as follows:

“The undersigned is directed to say that pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble High Court dated October, 8, 2001 in W.P. No. 707 of 2002 in the case of staff Council, Gyan Bharati Vidyapith and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors., the matter regarding payment of salaries to the approved teaching and non-teaching employees of Dearness Allowance getting schools recognized by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education at the rate of at least not less than what the teaching and non-teaching employees of the recognized Govt. aided schools are being paid, keeping in view the direction issued to the Anglo-Indian Schools has been taken up for consideration.”

Stating the reasons for which the Order dated May, 29, 2002 was issued, the Government then stated in the Order its decision, which is as follows:

“After due consideration of the matter, it is decided that the authorities of all Dearness Allowance getting schools recognized by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education in the state which receive Dearness Allowance component for the approved teaching and non-teaching staff of their schools from the Govt. of West Bengal will have to pay salary in the appropriate scale of pay from their own resources to the approved teaching and non-teaching employees at the rate prescribed by the State Govt. for teaching and non-teaching employees of the Govt. Aided Schools with immediate effect.”

6. Learned Advocate for the appellants contended that it would not be possible on the part of the appellant to pay such arrear right from 2002 in terms of the order of learned trial Court solely on the ground that the school authority did not collect appropriate fees from the student at the relevant point of time. Secondly, the school authority will have no alternative but to close down the school in case of payment of such arrears right from 2002.

7. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant further contended that learned trial Court did not consider the point of limitation and thereby erroneously directed the appellant to pay the arrears from 2002. Learned Advocate for the state has however fairly contended t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document