Back
High Court Of Delhi
SAMARTH SHIKSHA SAMITI - Appellant
Versus
DELHI STATE SARASWATI SHISHU BAL MANDIR KARAMCHARI KALYAN SAMITI - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 1406 of 2001
Decided On : 12/14/2001
DSE Act - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts - Section 25, Section 10, Section 107 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 25, Section 10, and Section 107 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. It highlighted the jurisdiction of civil courts, the determination of salaries of employees, and the fixation of pay, and how these provisions influenced the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration and direction for payment of arrears of pay to the employees of the defendant school. The defendant claimed that the suit was barred by Section 25 of the DSE Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant failed to comply with the provisions of Section 10 and Section 107 of the DSE Act, and there was no adequate remedy provided against the inaction of the Director under the Act. The court also emphasized the importance of justice prevailing over technical law.
Issues: The issues involved the jurisdiction of civil courts, compliance with salary determination provisions, and adequacy of remedies under the DSE Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was not barred by Section 25 of the DSE Act, and the defendant's failure to comply with the salary determination provisions and the lack of adequate remedies influenced the decision.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed as the court found no force in the petition due to the defendant's failure to give an undertaking to pay in accordance with the DSE Act and the lack of action by the educational authority.
( 1 ) HEARD. This revision petition is directed against an order refusing to reject the plaint dated 5/09/2001. The case of the petitioner is based on section 25 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (in short the "dse Act ). Section 25 of the DSE Act reads as under:-
"25. Jurisdiction of civil courts barredno civil court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter in relation to which the Administrator or the Director or any other person authorised by the Administrator or director or any other officer or authority appointed or specified by or under this Act, is empowered by or under this Act to exercise any power, and no injunction shall be granted by any civil court in respect of anything which is done or intended to be done by or under this Act. "
( 2 ) IT would be appropriate here to quote Section 10 of the DSE Act as well, which reads as under:-
"10. Salaries of employees (1) the scales of pay and allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and other prescribed benefits of the employees of a recognised private school shall not be less than those of the employees of the corresponding status in school run by the appropriate authority:
PROVIDED that where the pay and allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and other prescribed benefits of the employees of any recognised private school are less than those of the employees of the corresponding status in the schools run by the appropriate authority, the appropriate authority shall direct, in writing, the managing committee of such school to bring the same up to the level of those employees of the corresponding status in schools run by the appropriate authority. "
( 3 ) SECTION 107 of the DSE Act being relevant is also being reproduced here as under:-
"107. Fixation of pay (l) The initial pay of an employee, on first appointment, shall be fixed ordinarily at the minimum of the scale of pay:
PROVIDED that a higher initial pay, in the specified scale of pay, may be given to a person by the appointing authority:
PROVIDED further that no higher initial pay shall be granted in the case of an aided school except with the previous approval of the Director.
(2) The pay of an employee or promotion of a higher grade or post shall be determined by, the same rules as are applicable to the employees of government School. " (Emphasis supplied)
( 4 ) APPARENTLY the submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the suit is barred by Section 25 appears to be justified. But the further scrutiny of the situation reveals otherwise, as would be evident hereinafter.
( 5 ) PLAINTIFF/respondent No. 1 has filed a suit for declaring that the respective employees of defendant no. 1/petitioner are entitled to the scale as mentioned the 5th Pay Commission Report with effect from 1st january, 1996 with arrears and interest thereon and sought direction to defendant No. 1/petitioner to make the payment of pay and its arrears to the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, This prayer was made on the ground that despite representation the petitioner failed to pay arrears of pay with effect from 1/01/1996 to 31/12/1997. Rather they took the stand that they would pay the arrears with effect from 1/01/1996 to 31/12/1997 only after the direction of the Director of Education. The Director of Education was approached for violation of the rules under the DSE Act. Defendant No. 2/respondent No. 2 in spite of representation made by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 did not take any action against defendant No. 1/petitioner either to de-recognise it or to compel it to pay the arrears.
( 6 ) THE case of defendant No. 1/petitioner was that defendant No. 1/petitioner was not in a position to pay arrears of pay because no help was being provided by the government and shortage of money. However, it is not in dispute that 40% school fee was increased stating that this fee was being increased in view of the 5th Pay commission Report.
( 7 ) THE plaintiff/responden
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
