JUDGMENT

Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral)

W.P.(C) No. 18004-05/2005 and W.P.(C) No. 6351/2006

1. The limited issue argued before me in these cases is as to whether the petitioner/Mrs. Promilla Jain in W.P. (C) No. 6351/2006 is or is not entitled to payment of gratuity on account of being an employee of the respondent no.1/school in W.P. (C) No. 6351/2006 and which school is Vardhaman Shiksha Mandir Senior Secondary School.

2. In both the writ petitions effectively what is challenged is the order of the Directorate of Education dated 6.9.2004 which clarifies and applies the requirement of payment of gratuity to employees of schools in Delhi. This order of the Directorate of Education dated 6.9.2004 reads as under:

No.F.15/ACT/2004/7045-7146

Dated: 06.09.04

Sub: Clarification regarding the payment of gratuity.

Attention of Managing Committee of all Recognized private school is hereby invited to Section 10(1) of Delhi School Education Act 1973, which is reproduced below:

"The scales of pay and allowances, medical facilities, 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 school run by the appropriate authority:

Provided that where the scales of pay and allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and other prescribed benefits of the employees of any recognized 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 of the employees of the corresponding status in schools run by the appropriate authority:

Provided further that the failure to comply with such direction shall be deemed to be non-compliance with the conditions for continuing recognition of an existing school and the provisions of section 4 shall apply accordingly.

Terminal benefits of the employees of the Govt. Schools are being disbursed as per provisions of C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972, and C.C.S.(Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

In supersession of all orders issued on the subject, management committee of all the recognized private schools are therefore directed to make payment of terminal benefits of their employees not less than as prescribed under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

Sd/-

(RAJENDRA KUMAR)

DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

To

The Managing Committee

Through the Manager of all

The Unaided Recognized Schools.

Copy to:

1. All Regional Directors of Education.

2. Addln. DE (Schools)

3. All DDEs/ADEs/Eos/DEOs.

4. All Managers of Govt. Aided Schools/AOs of taken over schools.

Sd/-

(ABHA JOSHI)

ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF EDN. (ACT)"

3. I have had an occasion to examine the aspects of payment of gratuity, provident fund and pension to employees of schools in Delhi in different cases and wherein judgments have been passed. The schools in Delhi are of three types i.e. government schools where employees are government employees, private aided schools where 95% of the aid is provided by GNCTD through the Directorate of Education and private unaided schools, and that employees of latter two schools are private employees of the schools. As regards the payment of gratuity to employees of all the private schools is concerned, I have had an occasion to consider and decide the same in the case of Deepak Dua Vs. Director of Education and Anr., W.P. (C) No. 7040/2011 decided on 10.4.2013 where I have held that the private schools in Delhi are bound to pay gratuity to its employees in view of the notification of the Directorate of Education dated 28.3.2013.

4. In the subsequent judgment delivered by this Court in the case of K.R. Subbanna Vs. Delhi Kannada Senior Secondary