V S RAHI Vs. LT GOVERNOR DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was employed as Senior Art Teacher with respondent No.3 school. Petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.3.1990. Petitioner was contributing to the provident fund and was the member of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. An advertisement was issued by the Directorate of Education in June, 1990 that the employees of the recognised private unaided schools in Delhi and New Delhi were eligible to have the privileges, facilities, entitlements and rights pursuant to the provisions of Delhi School Education Act and the Rules made thereunder. The facilities and privileges to which the employees of recognised private unaided schools were allegedly entitled in terms of the said advertisement, issued by the Directorate of Education included medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and other prescribed benefits. Acting on this advertisement, the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court for issue of a direction to the respondents to grant pension to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner was that in terms of Section 10(1) of the Delhi School Education Act, the employees of recognised private schools were entitled to the same pay and allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund, etc. as those of the employees of the corresponding status in schools run by the appropriate authority. Submission, therefore, was that as the employees of the Government schools were entitled to pension such facilities should also have been provided to the employees of the private recognised schools. Writ petition was dismissed by this Court. Aggrieved by the order of the dismissal of the writ petition, petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court. That petition was also dismissed by the Supreme Court, however, liberty was given to the petitioner to take appropriate action under Section 10(1) of the Delhi School Education Act before the appropriate authorities. Pursuant to the liberty granted by the Supreme Court, petitioner appeared to have made a representation to the Lt.Governor claiming the same benefits, including pension, as were available to the employees of the Government schools. This representation was rejected by the Lt.Governor. The Lt.Governor in his order observed that the petitioner was not eligible for pension as he was working in a school where the pension scheme was not enforced in the employees of their institution. The Lt.Governor further observed that since the petitioner had availed the benefits of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme in lieu of pension, there was little that could be done on his part in the case of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of the Lt.Governor rejecting the representation of the petitioner, the present petition was filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of Section 10(1) of the Delhi School Education Act, the scales of pay and allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund, etc. of the employees of the recognised private schools cannot be less than those of the employees of the corresponding status in schools run by the appropriate authority. It is submitted that since the employees of the Government schools in Delhi were entitled to the benefit of pension, there could not be any discrimination in the case of the employees of the recognised private schools and as it was the statutory right of the petitioner to be paid the same pay and allowances and other facilities including the pension and gratuity as those of the employees of the Government schools, the respondents could not deny such pension to the petitioner. Reliance for this is placed by the petitioner upon the judgment of this Court in Safir Ahmed and others Vs. Lieutenant Governor, National Capital Territory of Delhi and Others-76(1998) Delhi Law Times 404 and Kapur Chand and others Vs. Delhi Administration and others-1988(2) Delhi Lawyer 245.

(3.) In Safir Ahmed and others Vs. Lieutenant Governor, National Capital Territory of Delhi and Others (supra), the Court was concerned with the writ petition filed by certain employees of a minority institution wherein they had claimed that they should be paid the same pay and allowances and other benefits, as were being paid to other aided and recognised educational institutions. It was in this context that the Court directed that the petitioners in that case were entitled to gratuity and pension according to pay drawn by them at the time of resignation or retirement and, accordingly, the respondents in that case were directed to pay pension and other allowances payable to the petitioner at par with other educational institutions on the basis of the last pay drawn. The court in that case was not concerned whether an employee who was a member of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme was also entitled to pension. The court had only directed the payment of salary, pension and gratuity, etc. at par with other educational institutions.