V S RAHI Vs. LT GOVERNMENT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to grant him permission with effect from 1.4.1992, with interest. Petitioner served the 3rd respondent-Cambridge School - as a teacher from 1.2.1985 to 31.3.1992. The 3rd respondent is a private, unaided school, governed by the provision of Delhi School Education Act 1973 (the Act, for short). As per Section 10 of the Act, the scales of pay, pension, gratuity, etc. of a recognised private school shall not be less than those of the employees of the corresponding status in schools run by the appropriate authority, as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act. The 'appropriate authority' defined herein, for all practical purposes will be the state or its instrumentalities. Petitioner refers to an advertisement invited by the Directorate of Education, stating that the employees of recognised private (unaided) schools in Delhi/New Delhi are eligible to have the privileges detailed therein, which include,

(2.) As per Notification No.7-4/u(56)/74 - dated 23.6.1980, opportunity was afforded to employees of private recognised schools to specify their options within a period of six months for either Contributory Provident Fund benefits (CPF, for short) or Tripple Pension Benefit Scheme ('Pension Scheme', for short). The Notification, also stated that in case the option was not given, the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972 and/or Gratuity Rules etc. would automatically become applicable to these employees. On 18.12.1980, petitioner opted for the pension rules. But after the retirement of petitioner on 31.3.1992, he was not given the pension. His representation dated 16.9.1992 made to the manager of the respondent school was forwarded to the Director of Education. Thereafter petitioner sent a notice to the Director through his counsel, on 7.11.1992, Petitioner received no reply. Hence the writ petition.

(3.) The respondent school contends that (1) the writ petition is essentially filed against it and therefore it is not maintainable (2) there is a difference between a government employee and an employee of a unaided school; employees working in Government School are not entitled to C.P.F. However, provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous provisions Act has been extended to the private schools and that the employees of the respondent school have been receiving the benefit C.P.F. and all other advantages including E.P.F. Scheme which is in-built into the said C.P.F.(3). The writ petition is belated and hit by the principle of laches since the petitioner has been accepting the application or C.P.F. in terms of a Government Notification No.2459 for a period of 10 years or more upto 1992 and the petitioner has thus acquiesced in the C.P.F. Scheme for a decade. (4) No direction to extend the Pension Scheme was issued to the respondent school under Section 10 of the Act; and no such direction could be issued "after taking into account the entire circumstances."