Shishu Bharti Vidyalaya Laxmi Nagar v. Anjana Sharma & Ors.

1. Learned counsel who appears for the appellants as above prays for an adjournment, which is declined. Thereason being thatthe order sheet shows that hearing in the appeals is being repeatedly adjourned at therequest of the appellants. Further, the issue sought to be urged in the three appeals is no longer res-integra. There are a large number of decisions by this Court that employees ofrecognised un-aided schools have to be paid salary atpar with their counter parts working in schools established by the Government of NOT of Delhi because this is the mandate of Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. The Section 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 recognisedprivate school shall not be less than those ofthe employees ofthe corresponding status in school run by the appropriate authority: Provided that where the scales ofpay and allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and otherprescribed benefits ofthe employees ofany recognised private school are less than those ofthe employees ofthe corresponding status in the schools run by the appropriate authority, the appropriate authority shall direct, in writing, the managing committee ofsuch school to bring the same up to the level of those of the-employees of the corresponding status inschools run bytheappropriate authority: LPA Nos.851/2013, 235/2014 &187/2015 2of[4] Providedfurther that thefailure to comply with such direction shall be deemed to be non-compliance with the conditions for continuing recognition ofan existing school and theprovisions ofsection 4 shall applyaccordingly. (2) The managing committee of every aided school shall deposit, every month, its share towards pay and allowances, medicalfacilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and otherprescribed benefits with the Administrator and the Administrator shall disburse, or cause to be disbursed, within thefirst week ofevery month, the salaries and allowances to theemployees ofthe aided schools. "

2. We may only note one such decision. It is dated May 11, 2012 and has been passed by the Division Bench ofthis Court in LPA No.286/2010 Rukmani Devi Jaipuria Public School v^'. Sadhna Payal & Ors.

3. As per the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, the form in which application for recognition has to be submitted is in terms of Rule 49. It refers to the application being required to be filed as per Form-I.

4. A perusal of Form-I would evince that the school which seeks recognition must give information as per the form which would relate to the infrastructure, the financial position and the capacity of the applicant to establish and run a recognisedschool.

5. The condition ofrecognition as per Rule 50 inter-alia includes that the managing committee of the school shall observe the provisions of the Act and the Rules made there under.

6. As per Section 4ofthe Act the appropriate authority cannot recognise a school unless the person which intends to establish the school shows having adequate funds to ensure financial stability and regular payment of LPA Nos.857/2013,235/2014 &187/2015 ^ salary and allowances to the employees.

7. The appellant has been directed by the learned Single Judge to comply with the circulars and directives issues by the Directorate of Education requiring all recognised schools to pay wages to its employees at par with their counter parts working in ^government schools, post recommendations ofthe6^^ Central Pay Commission being accepted.

8. If the appellant is unable to run the school established by the appellant, the appellant would be entitled to apply to the Directorate of Education praying that either the school should be taken over by the Directorate of Education or with the request that the appellant may be permittedto close down the school.

9. A perusal of the appeal would show that the appellant is pleading financial hardship.

10. If law casts anobligation ona person, the obligation has tobemet and financial hardship wouldnot be anyjustification.

11. Declining request for hearing in the appeals to be deferred, since learned counsel for the appellants has addressed no arguments we are dismissing the appeals noting as above.

12. No costs. CM No. 17872/2015 (Stay) in LPA 851/2013 CM No.4720/2014 tStavI in LPA 235/2014 Applications are dismissed as infructuous.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. MUKTA cfuPTA, J. SEPTEMBER 22, 2015/'vn'