Cause Title: New Delhi Municipal Council and Another vs. Manju Tomar and Others
Case Number: Civil Appeal No(s). 7440-7441 of 2012 and Civil Appeal No(s). 7442-7444 of 2012
Judgment Date: August 28, 2024
Quorum/Bench: Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Sandeep Mehta
"A bare perusal of the above order would clearly indicate that the offer of re-employment made by the appellant-DSGMC to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the school was not found to be bona fide as the same was not in conformity with the directions given by the High Court.[Para 15]"
"Shri Ritesh Khatri, learned counsel representing the appellant-DSGMC, while referring to Rule 47 of the Delhi Education Rules, urged that where as a result of closure of a recognised school, or withdrawal of the recognition, the staff of the school becomes surplus, they may be absorbed as far as possible in a Government school or aided school. As per learned counsel, the teachers and other staff of the school who became surplus on account of closure of the school would be entitled to the benefit under Rule 47 of the Delhi Education Rules. Thus, in sum and substance, the contention of learned counsel representing the appellant-DSGMC is that the NDMC and the Director (Education), NDMC are primarily responsible for absorption and payment of salary and other service benefits to the staff, which became surplus on account of closure of the school. [Para 17]"
"A bare perusal of the above Rule concludes beyond the pale of doubt that no recognised school or an existing class in the school, except an unaided minority school, shall be closed without offering full justification and without the prior approval of the Director.[Para 18]"
DSGMC argued that under Rule 47 of Delhi Education Rules, NDMC was responsible for absorbing surplus staff and paying their benefits after school closure. NDMC contended it shouldn't bear the burden of pay and benefits for staff after DSGMC's illegal school closure.
The teaching and non-teaching staff sought absorption in NDMC/Government aided schools and payment of salaries and other service benefits. They challenged DSGMC's unauthorized closure of the school and NDMC's withdrawal of recognition and grant-in-aid.
"Admittedly, the school in question being run by the appellant-DSGMC was receiving 95% grant from NDMC, and the same was closed down without due approval of the Director (Education), NDMC. As a consequence, the appellant-DSGMC cannot be allowed to take the shield of Rule 47 of the Delhi Education Rules so as to claim that the burden of re-employment and payment of salaries of the surplus teachers and the non-teaching staff upon closure of the school would be that of the NDMC. The question of absorption only arises when the closure of the school is done in accordance with law, which requires a full justification and prior approval of the Director as per Rule 46 supra. Since the closure of the school in question was undertaken de hors Rule 46, the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant-DSGMC that the onus to absorb the surplus teaching and non-teaching staff would be that of the NDMC, has no legal sanction and cannot be sustained.[Para 19]"
The Court noted that DSGMC closed the school without prior approval, violating Rule 46 of Delhi Education Rules. It held that DSGMC couldn't claim protection under Rule 47 for staff absorption by NDMC due to unauthorized closure. The Court affirmed NDMC's right to seek reimbursement from DSGMC for payments made to school staff.
The Supreme Court dismissed DSGMC's appeal, upholding that it was responsible for staff compensation due to unauthorized school closure. It directed NDMC to pay remaining dues including interest to school staff within eight weeks, while reiterating NDMC's right to seek reimbursement from DSGMC. The Court clarified that NDMC's reimbursement claim wouldn't be barred by limitation and allowed NDMC to seek impleadment in the pending contempt petition for reimbursement directions.
Comments