Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 3071
DELHI HIGH COURT
Rajiv Shakdher, J.
Vaishali Intn’L School Teachers Welfare Association & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Vijay Kumar & Ors. - Resopndent
Cont.Cas(C) 1341-52/2006
Decided On : 10-10-2012
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Adv. for R-1 Mr. R.M. Sinha, Advocate for R-2 to 5
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Society was liable to pay all the statutory and other dues to the teachers and staff as per the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, and that there was no ambiguity in the directions issued by the court.
Headnote:
Contempt - Compliance of Judgment - Delhi School Education Act, 1973 - Summary of Acts and Sections: DSE Act, 1973, Section 24(3) - The court found the respondents guilty of contempt for willfully disobeying the directions issued by the court in its judgment dated 18.08.2006. The court held that the Society was liable to pay all the statutory and other dues to the teachers and staff, as per the DSE Act, 1973, and that there was no ambiguity in the directions issued by the court. The court sentenced the respondents to simple imprisonment for a period of two months and imposed a fine on each of them.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought compliance with the judgment dated 18.08.2006, which directed the Society to pay all the statutory and other dues to the teachers and staff. The respondents made several attempts to seek a review of the directions and failed at each step. The petitioners had negotiated a settlement with the respondents, but the settlement was not approved by the Society, and no money was paid to the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the respondents guilty of contempt for willfully disobeying the directions issued by the court in its judgment dated 18.08.2006. The court noted that the Society had used every legal stratagem to defeat the cause of the petitioners and had made half-measures to pay the dues of the petitioners. The court rejected the submission that there was no liability on the Society to pay any money to the petitioners post 31.07.1998.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents willfully disobeyed the directions issued by the court in its judgment dated 18.08.2006 and whether there was ambiguity in the directions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was no ambiguity in the directions issued by the court and that the Society was liable to pay all the statutory and other dues to the teachers and staff. The court also rejected the submission that there was no liability on the Society to pay any money to the petitioners post 31.07.1998.
Final Decision: The court sentenced the respondents to simple imprisonment for a period of two months and imposed a fine on each of them. The court also directed the Registry to disburse the sum of Rs.2 lakhs deposited in Court, along with accrued interest, if any, to the petitioners.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
1. By this contempt petition, compliance is sought of judgment dated 18.08.2006 passed by this Court in LPA No.1721/2005. This is a classic case where the respondents have cocked a snook at the law by using every possible device, ostensibly under the guise of remedies available under the law, to avoid compliance of the directions issued by this Court vide the aforementioned judgment.
2. The background in which the aforesaid judgment came to be passed is as follows :-
2.1 The petitioner no.1 is an association, of which, petitioner nos.2 to 12 are members. Petitioner nos.2 to 12 were employed as teachers in Vaishali International School (hereinafter referred to as the School). The said School was admittedly run by All India Siddharth International Educational Society (Regd.) [hereinafter referred to as the Society].
2.2. As per the amended memo of parties filed in this court, respondent no.1, is one, Mr.Vijay Kumar, Director of Education in the Directorate of Education, at the relevant point in time. The present incumbent is, however, Mr. Amit Singla. Respondent no.2, Mr. R.C. Bharti, was the President and Chairman of the Society; at the relevant point in time. Respondent no.3, Mr. Prem Shankar Gaur, was similarly, the General Secretary of the Society, at the relevant point in time. Respondent no.4, Sh. Gyan Prakash, was the treasurer of the Society, while respondent no.5, Mr. Ashok Kumar was appointed as the President in place of Sh. R.C. Bharti, at some point in time, which is why the amended memo of parties was filed.
2.3. The School, referred to hereinabove, was recognized by the Directorate of Education on 29.08.1991. To start with, the school ran classes for Grades I to VIII which, pursuant to an order dated 10.06.1996 got upgraded to Grade VIII to the Secondary stage. The up gradation was relevant for the academic year 1996-1997.
2.4 It appears that, on 05.12.1997, a special inspection was ordered by the Directorate of Education. Accordingly, the school was inspected on 09.01.1998, by the officers of the Directorate of Education. The purpose of the inspection was, inter alia, to examine the accounts and the financial records of the School for the previous five (5) years.
2.5 Pursuant to the inspection, a report dated 22.01.1998 was generated. Based on the record, Directorate of Education vide communication dated 22.03.1998, issued directions to the school, under section 24(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (in short, DSE Act), to adhere to the directions contained therein, and take remedial measures.
2.6 Instead of taking remedial steps, the School/Society acted inimically vis-à-vis the teachers, in as much as, nine teachers, who are now the members of the petitioner no.1/Association were suspended from service.
2.7 For this purpose, permission was sought by the School from the Directorate of Education. The Education Officer, East District, vide letter dated 03.04.1998, declined permission and as a matter of fact, directed revocation of the suspension. The School was directed to re-induct the teachers.
2.8 The Society which ran the School was aggrieved with the directions issued by the Directorate of Education vide communication dated 22.03.1998, whereupon a writ petition being: WP(C) 1638/1998 was filed in this court. This writ petition filed by the Society was dismissed by this Court on 07.08.1998.
2.9 In the interregnum, the Society, which was determined not to re-induct the teachers took an even more deleterious step, at least in so far as, the teachers were concerned, by ordering the closure of the School. This decision was communicated by the Society to the Directorate of Education vide letter dated 31.07.1998.
2.10 The Directorate of Education, however, vide communication dated 03.09.1998, rejected the request of the Society to close down the School. A specific direction was issued that the school be continued in accordance with the DSE Act.
3. Once again, the Society approached this court,
