0

Delhi High Court held that teachers of unaided private schools are entitled to the same pay and emoluments as those of government schools.

Blog , , , , , , , , , ,

Title: BHARAT MATA SARASWATI BAL MANDIR SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL vs VINITA SINGH AND ORS.

Date of Decision: 07th July, 2023

+ LPA 601/2022 & CM APPLs. 45446-45447/2022

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

Introduction

Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgement dated 14th December, 2021, whereby the writ petition filed by three teachers seeking payment of 7th Central Pay Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘7th CPC’) has been allowed and held that teachers of unaided private schools are entitled to the same pay and emoluments as those of government schools, in terms of the obligation enjoined upon the private recognized schools under the DSE Act, 1973. The schools cannot evade their statutory responsibility and are bound to pay the statutory dues.

Facts of the case

The pertinent information is that respondents 1 through 3 have been regularly employed by the appellant institution. Respondent No. 5/Directorate of Education (DOE) issued a notification on October 17, 2017, requesting that all private recognised schools adopt the recommendations of the 7th CPC. Respondents 1 to 3 sought this Court by filing a writ case after the appellant school refused to extend the benefit of the 7th CPC. By the impugned judgement on 14th December 2021, the learned Single Judge found that the respondents 1 through 3 herein were entitled to arrears of their benefits/salaries beginning on January 1, 2016, and also required the school to give them in accordance with the 7th CPC’s rules. Hence, the current appeal has come to be filed by the school.

Analysis of the court

The Delhi High court held that the writ petition filed by the three teachers was maintainable as it involves a public law element, inasmuch as, the original writ petitioners were seeking the implementation of Section 10(1) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (DSE Act, 1973)

In reality, the writ petitioners sought implementation of the circular/order/notification dated October 17, 2017 issued by DOE requiring the schools to pay teachers’ wages in line with the 7th CPC through the underlying writ petition. In reality, the Supreme Court has unequivocally stated the following in the case of St. Mary’s Education Society (Supra):

“75.1. An application under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a person or a body discharging public duties or public functions. The public duty cast may be either statutory or otherwise and where it is otherwise, the body or the person must be shown to owe that duty or obligation to the public involving the public law element. Similarly, for ascertaining the discharge of public function, it must be established that the body or the person was seeking to achieve the same for the collective benefit of the public or a section of it and the authority to do so must be accepted by the public.”

Hence the present writ was maintainable.

This Court further believes that, given the recurrent nature of the claim, the writ petition submitted by the original writ petitioners is not precluded by laches or delay.

In Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (supra), the Supreme Court itself said by way of an example that remedy should be given regardless of delay if the problem relates to pay payment as it does not impact third party rights.

Furthermore, because the decision in Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak v. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation (above) deals with a matter of a higher grade pay scale in the following promotional post, which is not the situation in the present issue, it is of no use to the appellant.

To sum up, it should be stated once again that the respondents in the writ case requested the payment of their entire salaries in accordance with the 7th CPC’s recommendations. According to Section 10 of the DSE Act, a recognised private school’s pay scale and allowances, medical services, pension, gratuity, provident fund, and other permitted benefits must not be less than those of the employees in the same position at the public school. According to a statement from the DOE dated October 17, 2017, all recognised schools are required to follow the 7th CPC’s recommendations in compliance with the DSE Act, 1973. at light of this, it is unquestionable that instructors at unassisted private schools are entitled to the same pay and benefits as emoluments as those of government schools, in terms of the obligation enjoined upon the private recognized schools under the DSE Act, 1973. The schools cannot evade their statutory responsibility and are bound to pay the statutory dues.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta

click to view the judgement

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition filed and dismissed the order passed by the Container Corporation of India Ltd.

Blog , , , , , , , , ,

Title: Loadstar Equipment Ltd. Vs Container Corporation of India Ltd.

Decision: 04.07.23

W.P.(C) 5040/2023 & CM APPL. 19721/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

Introduction

Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition filed and dismissed the order passed by the Container Corporation of India Ltd, disqualifying the petitioner from participating in the bidding of tender bearing reference no. CON/AREA1/TECH/FORKLIFT-20/2023, which was floated by Respondent No. 1 on their website vide NIT dated 08.02.2023.

Facts of the Case

The Respondent No. 1 invited applications on the government portal for bids from Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs)/authorized dealers through a two packet online open tendering system, at an estimated total cost of Rs. 38,11,40,000/-, for the design, manufacture, supply, and commissioning of 20 forklifts with a capacity of 35 tonnes at a specified terminal. This is the background to the current petition.

Respondent No.1/CONCOR subsequently issued a corrigendum in respect of the part of the NIT document which lays down qualification criterion for bidders. Accordingly, Clause 2.1(b) under Section II “General Instructions to Bidders” was added to the NIT document.

Upon examination of the bid documents in the technical stage, Respondent No.1 issued communications to the bidding parties on 23.03.2023 and again on 24.03.2023, calling upon them to submit additional documents to rectify discrepancies found in the documents, latest by 29.03.2023. and The Petitioner submitted their reply to the aforesaid communication and submitted documents to the Respondent vide emails dated 28.03.2023 and 29.03.2023

On a perusal of the documents submitted by the Petitioner, the Tender Evaluation Committee of Respondent No.1 found the Petitioner to be technically not qualified and rejected the bid of the Petitioner vide impugned communication dated 18.04.2023. The Petitioner thereafter addressed an email to the CMD of Respondent No. 1, stating that no reasons had been assigned for their disqualification, and requested the intervention of CMD of Respondent No. 1 to permit the Petitioner to give further clarifications. However, there was no response to this communication.

Being aggrieved by the decision of the Respondent No.1 dated 18.04.2023, disqualifying the Petitioner from the tender process, the Petitioner has filed the instant petition on 19.04.2023, challenging the impugned communication.

Analysis and Decision of the court

In accordance with Clause 2.1, a qualified bidder must have submitted at least one purchase order for a comparable good to at least one government department, CPSC, SPSC, public limited company, etc. during the previous three years and on or before the last day of the financial year immediately preceding the one for which the bid is being submitted. Additionally, it states that a bidder and an authorised dealer cannot submit separate bids for the same product or item in the same tender.

According to Clause 2.1, the manufacturer or an authorised dealer must demonstrate that they have successfully delivered or completed one purchase order in order to be taken into consideration for the tender. According to the certificate provided by APL Apollo Steel Pipes, M/s Excellent Engineering & Allied Service Private Limited provided the device produced by the petitioner.

The justification offered by Respondent No. 1 was that M/s Excellent Engineering & Allied Service Private Limited was the beneficiary of the certificate issued by APL Apollo Steel Pipes. This justification is inadmissible since the proof demonstrates that M/s Excellent Engineering & Allied Service Private Limited worked with Apollo Steel Pipes to complete the machine the petitioner built.

It is undeniably well established that judicial review of administrative acts, including those involving tenders, is severely constrained. However, judicial review may be used to stop arbitrary, unreasonable, and illogical behaviour.

The fundamental requirement of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution is now well established and has been upheld numerous times by the Apex Court. Non-arbitrariness in substance and essence is the lifeblood of fair play, and State actions are subject to judicial review to the extent that the State must act lawfully for a discernible reason and not arbitrarily. The Court must intervene in order to exercise its authority under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution if the State or an instrumentality of the State fails to behave reasonably or fairly in the awarding of contracts. Vice Chairman & Managing Director, City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and Others v. Shishir Realty Private Limited and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1141 a case decided by the Supreme Court, where it was held that “Fairness and the good faith standard ingrained in the contracts entered into by public authorities mandates such public authorities to conduct themselves in a non-arbitrary manner during the performance of their contractual obligations” and “The constitutional guarantee against arbitrariness as provided under Article 14, demands the State to act in a fair and reasonable manner unless public interest demands otherwise. However, the degree of compromise of any private legitimate interest must correspond proportionately to the public interest, so claimed”

Arbitrariness is the antithesis of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, and the State must operate in a fair and reasonable manner, as has been well-established and stated by the Apex Court. As previously stated, the bidder who is a manufacturer only needed to demonstrate that it has experience supplying at least one single purchase order of government departments, CPSEs, SPSEs, Public Listed Companies, ICD, DCT, MMLP, Ports, CFS, CTOs for similar item during the previous three financial years and current financial year last day of month prior to the one in which tender is invited.

A thorough study of Clauses 2.1, 5.4, and Annexures 10 and 11 of the NIT reveals that the maker must merely demonstrate that it has provided a machine that has been installed satisfactorily. In a similar vein, Annexure-14 stipulates that the maker must also provide the certificate.

Since the Petitioner has demonstrated that it satisfies the qualifying requirements, their bid shouldn’t have been turned down.

The Respondent No. 1 was instructed to open the Petitioner’s financial bid during the hearing, and it turned out that the Petitioner was the lowest bidder.

 Given the foregoing, the writ petition and any pending applications, if any, are approved. It is mandated that the Respondents go forward in line with the law.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta

Click to view the judgement

0

The Writ Court can never adjudicate the issues on the basis of documents Says Madras High Court.

blog, Blog , , ,

Case Title:   Sulthan Beevi.                                               … Petitioner                                  
                                              Versus

The Director of Town and Country Planning and  Anrs        … Respondents

Date of Decision:  Pronounced On 27.06.2023

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN.

Citation: W.P(MD)No.1770 of 2022 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.1557 & 1558 of 2022.

Introduction:

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent pertaining to Na.Ka.No.2752/2020 TN2, dated 12.11.2021 granting technical approval vide Ko.O.Ma.Va/Na.Vuu.Vu.E (Tha.Maa) No.37/2021 to regularize the unapproved layout called “IBN BATTUTA CITY” formed by the respondents 5 and 6 and quash the same in so far as the lands comprised in SR.Nos.376/1B, 376/2 and 376/4B to an total extent of 50 cents in Soolamangalam 2- Sethi Revenue Village, Ayyampettai Town Panchayat, Thanjavur District.

Facts:

The petitioner had claimed that the property aforementioned belong to her grandfather Meeran Mydeen. During his life time, he had allotted the property to his 4 sons by executing four different registered settlement deeds. The petitioner’s father, Mohammed Ismail, stood benefited to the properties aforementioned measuring 50 cents in Survey Nos.376/1B,
376/2 and 376/4B in Soolamangalam 2 – Sethi Revenue Village, Ayyampetti Town Panchayat, by a settlement deed, dated 26.10.1997, registered as document No.1022 of 1977 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Ayyampetti.
The petitioner further stated that her father died intestate on 04.03.1992 leaving behind her mother and two other brothers of the petitioner. One of the brother died and the mother had also died. The petitioner claimed that she is in possession along with the other brother, but who however, is now abroad. The petition claimed that she is therefore, directly interested in the lands aforementioned and she came to know that the respondents 5 and 6 had formed a layout of a large area of the property, including the property aforementioned. Claiming that her property had been unlawfully included in the layout, the Writ Petition has been filed seeking interfernce with the order granting such approval of the lay out.

Issues:

  • If the grand father had settled excess lands, then what he was allotted in the partition deed, then the issue of title itself must be adjudicated?
  • Whether  the Writ Court can  adjudicate the issues on the basis of documents?

Legal Analysis:

The petitioner claims that the approval granted for the lay out bit “IBN BATTUTA CITY” in Soolamangalam 2 – Sethi Revenue Village, Ayyampetti Town Panchayat, Thanjavur District, by the respondents 1 and 2 should be interefered with, since she claimed title to
50 cents of lands in Survey Nos.376/1, 376/2 and 376/4. The flow of title for the said lands is not direct but rather had taken various turns and twist. The lands originally belonged to the
grand father of the petitioner and his brother Abdul Khader. They had entered into a parition deed. By the partition, the grand father was allotted portions of land in each one of the survey numbers. If he where to deal with the lands subsequently, by a further settlement deeds
infavour of his sons, then he could do so only with respect to the lands which had been allotted to him under the partition deed.
But a perusal of the record shows that he had dealt with excess land. Once this fact stares in the face of the petitioner, the petitioner should institute a suit seeking a relief to divide the lands, to demarcate the lands, to identify the lands and to partition the lands and to sub-divide the lands. Without a suit for declaration of title, as against her own paternal uncle since there has been a overlapping of lands in the four separate settlement deeds executed by the paternal grand father, the petitioner can never claim exclusive title for 50 cents of lands in the
aforementioned 3 survey numbers. She can claim joint title, but it is only with her brother who is surviving, and more importantly with the legal heirs of with her paternal uncles as there has been four separate settlement deeds executed by her grand father.

The records reveal that the paternal grand father of the petitioner had settled 24 cents of land in excess in survey No.376/1 in favour of his 4 sons. He had similarly, settled 21 cents of land in excess in Survey No.376/4. These facts may be right. These facts may be wrong, but the only forum to test these facts is the Civil Court where the settlement deeds will have to be put to test and marked as documents and will have to pass the test of admissibility, of proof and of being relevant. The partition deed will have to be examined. The schedule of the lands
in the partition deed between her grand father and his brother will have to be examined. Thereafter, the lands which was allotted to her grand father will have to be crystalized. Thereafter, the four settlement deeds executed by the grand father will have to be examined. The lands settled will have to be identified and finally the lands settled to the father of the
petitioner herein will have to be identified. If the grand father had settled excess lands, then what he was allotted in the partition deed, then the issue of title itself must be adjudicated. That would be a question to be adjudicated not between the petitioner and the respondents 5 and 6, but between the petitioner and her paternal uncles who were the beneficiaries of the settlement deeds executed by her grand father. Without there being a proper demarcation of lands, there can never be an adjudication in this Writ Petition on the basis of an affidavit.

Judgement:

It is thus seen that the petitioner will necessarily have to approach the Civil Court, seek necessary relief, to identify the lands and then, question the approval if the lands are identified and if they fall within the lands for which lay out was approved in favour of the
respondents 5 and 6. Without that preliminary examination of title, of possession and of demarcation of lands, this Court never can adjudicate on the issue raised by the petitioner. I cannot grant any relief to the petitioner herein. The petitioner should put the horse before the cart. She should first institute a suit, identify her lands and then question the approval order, if the lands fall within the approval granted for the lay out formed by the respondents 5 and 6. She cannot approch the Writ Court first and seek an order. The Writ Court can never adjudicate the issues on the basis of documents.

Conclusion:

The records reveal that the paternal grand father of the petitioner had settled 24 cents of land in excess in survey No.376/1 in favour of his 4 sons. He had similarly, settled 21 cents of land in excess in Survey No.376/4. These facts may be right. These facts may be wrong, but the only forum to test these facts is the Civil Court where the settlement deeds will have to be put to test and marked as documents and will have to pass the test of admissibility, of proof and of being relevant. The partition deed will have to be examined. So the court says The Writ Court can never adjudicate the issues on the basis of documents.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

 

0

Madras High Court grants One week ordinary leave to the convict prisoner.

Blog , , ,

CASE TITLE: Saranya Vs. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Chennai Range, Chennai and The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

Date of Decision: 16th June 2023

CORAM:
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
                                 and
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

Citation:    W.P.No.17740 of 2023

INTRODUCTION:

The Petition filed by Saranya D/o: Thiru V. Ashok kumar under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant 15 days ordinary leave enabling the petitioner’s father Ashok Kumar, son of Viswanathan, male, aged 63 years, convict prisoner No.9826, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai to attend naming ceremony of his grand child and also to take medical treatment to his ailment.

FACTS:

The Convict Thiru.V.Ashok Kumar, son of Thiru.Viswanathan, aged 63 years was trailed before the Special Court for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Chennai and he was acquitted by the trail court on 31.07.2013 and an Appeal was preferred by state and the Madras High Court reversed the judgement of trail court and convicted him on 24.02.2023. The convict prisoner was convicted inter-alia under Section 7 of ‘The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988’ and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and also one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/.

The convict prisoner is now serving sentence; that the convict prisoner’s daughter (writ petitioner) sent a representation dated 08.06.2023 to the respondents seeking 15 days ordinary leave on two grounds; that one ground is the cradle ceremony (name giving ceremony) of the petitioner’s child i.e., convict prisoner’s grand child on 15.06.2023 and the other ground is ill-health of the convict prisoner and taking native treatment for the same at home.

ISSUES:

  • Can the Court grant leave to the Convict prisoners before completion of 1 year imprisonment?
  • Can the court issue writ Mandamus to direct the prison authorities to leave the convict prisoner?

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Learned Prosecutor adverted to Rules 22 and 21 of Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 submitted that the
sentence itself is for one year and therefore Rule 22(1)(a) is an
impediment for grant of ordinary leave.

As the lone objection of the learned Prosecutor turning on Rule 22 (1)(a) of said Rules does not cut ice with us owing to sentences added upto 18 months as alluded to supra, The Court found that this is an appropriate case to grant one week ordinary leave to the convict prisoner. We also notice that the name giving ceremony/function was held on 15.06.2023 and therefore the convict prisoner will have the benefit of being with his grand child over the week end and can also take suitable native treatment at home for his ailments.

Though Rule 22 (1) (a) of said Rules may not present a problem in the manner in which it was projected before court, it may still pose a problem as the convict prisoner has not completed one year of imprisonment.

Therefore, The court deemed it appropriate to exempt the convict prisoner from this provision by exercising our constitutional powers.  

The court granted leave by imposing few conditions:

  • The convict prisoner shall surrender to the prison authority i.e., Central Prison, Puzhal – I, Chennai on 26.06.2023 in the evening before dusk e., by 05.30 p.m.
  • The convict prisoner shall present himself every day of leave and sign in a suitable register in the jurisdictional police station the jurisdictional police station is Thirumullaivoyal Police Station.
  • The convict prisoner shall stay in his daughter’s house at No.10, Gayathri Nagar, School Street, Ayapakkam, Thiruvallur District 600 077 during the leave period.

CONCLUSION:

The Court granted leave for the convict prison by using its constitutional power and directed the prison authorities to leave him by issuing the writ of mandamus, this order will not serve as a precedent for all and every case and cases of this nature have to be dealt with on case to case basis depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case the Madras High court sanctioned the leave for the convict prison by using Constitutional powers.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR

click here to view Judgement

1 2 3 4