Holding

The Court held that because the school was closed without the requisite prior approval under Rule 46, Rule 47 cannot be invoked to shift the liability to NDMC, and NDMC is entitled to reimbursement from DSGMC without limitation bars.

Summary

The Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee (DSGMC) closed the Khalsa Boys Primary School, which received a 95% grant from the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC), without obtaining prior approval under Rule 46 of the Delhi School Education Rules. NDMC consequently stopped the grant and later paid the arrears, salary, pension and interest to the school’s teaching and non‑teaching staff, directing DSGMC to reimburse these amounts. The High Court had ordered DSGMC to bear the burden of re‑employment and payment of salaries under Rule 47, a direction challenged by both NDMC and DSGMC before the Supreme Court. The Court held that Rule 47 could not be invoked because the school’s closure was illegal, lacking the required prior approval, and therefore the liability to pay staff rested with NDMC, which could seek reimbursement from DSGMC. The Court also ruled that the limitation period does not bar NDMC’s claim for reimbursement. Accordingly, the appeals by DSGMC were dismissed, NDMC was ordered to pay the remaining dues including interest, and was permitted to pursue reimbursement from DSGMC.

Issues considered

The closure of a recognised school without prior approval under Rule 46 renders the closure illegal.
Whether Rule 47 can shift the burden of payment and re‑employment of surplus staff to NDMC.
Whether NDMC’s claim for reimbursement from DSGMC is barred by the limitation period.

Legislation cited

Delhi School Education Act, 1973
Delhi School Education Rules, 1973s. Rule 46, s. Rule 47, s. Rule 55(1), s. Rule 69

Subjects

Closure of the schoolRe-employmentPayment of salaries of surplus teachers and non‑teaching staffUnaided minority schoolAbsorptionLegal sanctionReimbursementArrears of salary/pensionRetiral benefitsPayment of principal amountLimitationPayment of interest

Judgment

[2024] 8 S.C.R. 650 : 2024 INSC 635

New Delhi Municipal Council and Another
v.
Manju Tomar and Others
(Civil Appeal No(s). 7440-7441 of 2012)
28 August 2024
[Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Matter as regards, the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management
Committee-DSGMC, challenging the order passed by the High
Court, whereby the NDMC was directed to reimburse the pay and
perquisites including the pension and other benefits accruing to
the staff of the school and then to recover the same from DSGMC.

Headnotes†
Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 – rr. 46, 47 – Closing
down of a school or any class in a school – Absorption
of surplus [employee] – School being run by Delhi Sikh
Gurdwara Management Committee-DSGMC receiving 95%
grant from NDMC, and remaining 5% contribution made by
the DSGMC towards the budget of the school, closed down
without due approval of Director, NDMC – Issue as regards, re-
employment and payment of salaries of the surplus teachers
and non-teaching staff upon closure of the school – Order
passed by the High Court, whereby the NDMC directed to
reimburse the pay and perquisites including the pension and
other benefits accruing to the staff of the school and then
to recover the same from DSGMC – Challenge to:
Held: r.47 cannot be invoked by DSGMC 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 – 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 r.46 – Since the closure of the school was undertaken
de hors r.46, the submission that the onus to absorb the surplus

* Author
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 651

New Delhi Municipal Council v. Manju Tomar and Other

teaching and non-teaching staff would be that of the NDMC, has
no legal sanction and cannot be sustained – Bar of limitation would
not come in the way of the NDMC in seeking reimbursement of the
amounts paid to the staff of the school from the DSGMC – Principal
amount having already been paid by NDMC, the direction given by
the High Court for payment of interest to the staff of the school, in
terms of the impugned judgment does not call for interference –
NDMC to pay all remaining dues including interest to the staff of
the school, within the stipulated period – NDMC entitled to seek
reimbursement of the amounts paid to staff of the school from the
DSGMC, in case the DSGMC voluntarily fails to reimburse the said
amount. [Paras 18, 19, 21-26]

List of Acts
Delhi School Education Act, 1973; Delhi School Education Rules,
1973.

List of Keywords
Closure of the school; Re-employment; Payment of salaries of
surplus teachers and non-teaching staff; Unaided minority school;
Absorption; Legal sanction; Reimbursement; Arrears of the
salary/pension; Retiral benefits; Payment of principal amount;
Limitation; Payment of interest.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7440-7441 of
2012
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.12.2009 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 441 and 442 of 2009
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 7442-7444 of 2012
Appearances for Parties
Yoginder Handoo, Ashwin Kataria, Garvit Solanki, Ms. Medha Gaur,
Ritesh Khatri, Advs. for the Appellants.
Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun Sharma, Ms. Anupama
Ngangom, Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Ritesh Khatri, M. C. Dhingra,
Advs. for the Respondents.
652 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. These appeals filed by New Delhi Municipal Council1 (hereinafter
being referred to as ‘NDMC’) and Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management
Committee2 (hereinafter being referred to as ‘DSGMC’) arise out of
a common judgment dated 9th December, 2009 passed by the High
Court of Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 441 and 442 of 2009
and hence, they have been heard and are being decided together.
Civil Appeal Nos. 7442-7444 of 2012
3. Facts in a nutshell relevant and essential for disposal of the appeals
are noted hereinbelow.
4. The appellant-DSGMC was managing and operating a school, namely,
Khalsa Boys Primary School (in short ‘school’), constructed by it in
the premises of the Gurudwara Bangla Sahib, New Delhi. The school
was initially started with 130 students, five teachers including the
Headmistress, 2 peons and one helper. The school was receiving 95%
grant from the NDMC and remaining 5% contribution was made by
the appellant-DSGMC towards the budget of the school. Respondents
No. 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were employed as the Headmistress, Assistant
Teacher, Water Women, Sweeper-cum-Chowkidar, Chowkidar,
respectively in the school.
5. It is claimed that over a period of time, the building of the school
became old and dilapidated and also, considering the growing
number of devotees visiting the Gurudwara, the appellant-DSGMC
was finding it difficult to run the school on a day-to-day basis. The
appellant-DSGMC, therefore, decided to shift the school from its
existing location to a new premises i.e. at Mata Sundari College,
Old Building, New Delhi. Since the school was receiving 95% grant
from the NDMC, the appellant-DSGMC moved the NDMC seeking
permission to shift the school.

1 Civil Appeal No(s). 7440-7441 of 2012
2 Civil Appeal No(s). 7442-7444 of 2012
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 653

New Delhi Municipal Council v. Manju Tomar and Other

6. Upon receiving information about the proposed shifting of the school
by the appellant-DSGMC, the Headmistress and other staff of the
school challenged the said proposal by filing Writ Petitions3 in the
High Court of Delhi. An ex-parte stay order dated 30th May, 2005
was passed by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Delhi,
staying the proposed shifting of the school. However, in spite of
the stay order being granted and having been communicated, the
appellant-DSGMC demolished a substantial part of the school building
thereby, making it non-functional. Consequent to the demolition of the
school building, the NDMC stopped the grant-in-aid under Rule 69
of the Delhi Education Act and Rules, 1973 (hereinafter after being
referred to as ‘Delhi Education Rules’) on the reasoning that it was
under an obligation to provide grant-in-aid to schools which fell within
its territorial jurisdiction and that the alternate location selected by
the appellant-DSGMC, i.e., Mata Sundari College was outside the
jurisdiction of the NDMC.
7. The High Court of Delhi disposed of the above writ petitions vide
order dated 6th October, 2005 with a direction to the NDMC to
consider and decide within four weeks as to whether ex-post facto
sanction could be granted to the appellant-DSGMC to close down
the school since the same was being shifted to an area which was
outside the jurisdiction of the NDMC, thus, the shifting could lead
to the closure of the school. Following the direction given by the
High Court, the NDMC issued an order dated 14th February, 2006
whereby, it invoked Rule 55(1) of the Delhi Education Rules and
noted that ex-post facto sanction could not be granted for running
the school at the Mata Sundari College because it fell beyond
its jurisdiction and consequently, it was decided to withdraw the
recognition and to stop the grant-in-aid to the school being run by
the appellant-DSGMC.
8. The teaching as well as non-teaching staff of the school filed
fresh writ petitions4 in the High Court of Delhi, seeking a direction
for absorption in a NDMC/Government aided school and also to
command the appellant-DSGMC to pay them the salaries and other
service benefits.

3 WP(C) Nos. 9951-52/2005
4 WP(C) Nos. 13044-55/2006
654 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

9. The said writ petitions were later amended and the order of the
NDMC dated 14th February, 2006 was also assailed by the teaching
as well as non-teaching staff of the school. The writ petitions were
disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 13th July,
2009 in the following manner:-
(i) NDMC was directed to pass a speaking order afresh within
four weeks from the date of receipt of the decision reflecting as
to whether ex-post facto sanction in terms of Rule 46 of Delhi
Education Rules could be granted to the appellant-DSGMC to
close down the school and if not why;
(ii) The appellant-DSGMC would continue to pay the salaries to
the serving staff and pensionary benefits to petitioners No. 6 to
12(respondents No. 8 to 14 herein) w.e.f. March, 2006, till the
NDMC passed a fresh order in terms of the decision.
10. The above order of the learned Single Judge was assailed by the
then serving teachers/staff and the retired teachers of the school
before the Division Bench of the High Court by filing two Letters
Patent Appeals,5 which were allowed vide order dated 9th December
2009, with the following directions:
(i) Pay the arrears of salary;
(ii) Employ the petitioners No. 1-5(respondents No. 1-5 herein) in a
Government or Government-aided school within twelve weeks
of the order dated 9th December, 2009 i.e. by 8th March, 2010;
(iii) Otherwise, the DSGMC would be required to pay the petitioners
No. 1-5(respondents No. 1-5 herein) the full pay and all
perquisites from 4th March, 2010 onwards;
(iv) NDMC was directed to pay to petitioners No. 6 to 12(respondents
No. 8 to 14 herein) the entire arrears of salary/retiral benefits
with simple interest @ 9% per annum within twelve weeks.
NDMC was further directed to regularly transfer pensionary
amounts directly to the bank accounts of the petitioners No. 6
to 12(respondents No. 8 to 14 herein). However, NDMC was
given liberty to seek reimbursement of the entire amount, as

5 LPA No. 441 of 2009 in Ms. Manju Tomar & Ors. v. NCT & Ors. & LPA No. 442 of 2009 in Ms. Santosh
Kaur & Ors. v. NCT & Ors.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 655

New Delhi Municipal Council v. Manju Tomar and Other

directed above, from the appellant-DSGMC which had closed
the school without prior approval of the appropriate authority;
(v) After re-employment, the tenure, seniority, pay scales and
perquisites of the in-service staff i.e. the petitioners No. 1 to
5(respondents No. 1 to 5 herein) would not be adversely affected
just because of closure of the school;
(vi) Since the petitioners No. 1 to 5(respondents No. 1 to 5 herein)
had not worked during the period 2006-2009, they would be
entitled to receive only 50% of their pay and perquisites but
this period would be counted for the purposes of their seniority
and for computing their pensionary and other statutory benefits.
11. The said common order of the Division Bench of the High Court is
assailed in these appeals preferred by the NDMC and the appellant-
DSGMC, respectively.
12. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned
judgments and the material placed on record.
13. The following facts as emerging from the record are not in dispute:-
(i) That appellant-DSGMC demolished a substantial part of the
school building without seeking permission from the competent
authority, i.e., NDMC, leading to the closure of the school.
(ii) That the demolition was undertaken in spite of an interim stay
order passed by the High Court of Delhi on 30th May, 2005 in
Writ Petition(Civil) Nos. 9951-52 of 2005, staying the proposed
shifting of the school.
(iii) The recognition and grant extended to the school was withdrawn
by the NDMC vide order dated 14th February, 2006, and as a
corollary thereto, the appellant-DSGMC was no longer entitled
to receive 95% grant which was provided by the NDMC for
running the school in the premises of the Gurudwara. Thus,
the obligation to reimburse the pay and other service benefits
accruing to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the school
fell upon the appellant-DSGMC.
(iv) That the appellant-DSGMC did not challenge the decision of the
NDMC dated 14th February, 2006, withdrawing the recognition
and the grant-in-aid, before any forum.
656 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(v) That the employees of the school have filed a Contempt Petition6
before the High Court of Delhi wherein, the learned Single
Judge vide order dated 1st October, 2019 observed as below: -
“In effect, the respondent no. 4 in the LPA namely: Delhi
Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee, Guru Gobind
Singh Bhawan, Gurdwara Rakabganj, New Delhi-110001,
was required to do the following:
i) pay the arrears of salary;
ii) employ the petitioners in a Government or
Government-aided school within twelve weeks of
the order dated 09.12.2009 i.e. by 08.03.2010.
iii) otherwise, the DSGMC would be required to pay
the petitioners the full pay and all perquisites
from 04.03.2010 onwards.
Admittedly, the employment was not done till
30.01.2018. There is a delay of roughly eight years,
short of 36 days. Respondent no. 4-DSGMC had
offered employment to the petitioners by its letter
dated 17.08.2010 calling upon them to join Guru Tegh
Bahadur International School, Fatehabad, Haryana. The
petitioners declined to join the said school, because
the said offer was not in accordance with the directions
of this Court i.e. the school was neither Government
owned nor Government-aided. Furthermore, it was
situated in Haryana and not in Delhi.
Keeping the said response in mind, the DSGMC offered
yet another employment at their various schools in Delhi,
however, yet again none of these schools were either
Government owned or Government-aided. Hence, the
petitioners expressed their reservations in joining the
said schools. Their concern primarily was that their
service conditions and employment benefits should not
be affected, which indeed, had been secured by the order
of the Division Bench dated 09.12.2009 and 08.02.2010.

6 Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 805 of 2016 in Manju Tomar & Ors. v. Manjit Singh GK & Ors.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 657

New Delhi Municipal Council v. Manju Tomar and Other

The petitioners replied to the DSGMC on the same date
on which they received the offer i.e. 28.08.2010. Their
reply reads as under:
“The job offered to us is not as per the judgment
of the Delhi High Court dt. 9/12/09 & 8/2/10, in
which Para 15, 17 & 20 clearly says that job
should be on same terms & conditions on which
they were employed when Primary school was
owning in the NDMC area. So Please give us
job in Govt/Govt-Aided School as per High Court
judgement to avoid contempt of Supreme Court
dt 9/8/10. We have also filed Affidavit in this
connection. In The Supreme Court dt 27/8/10.”
Subsequent to this reply, there was no communication
to any of the petitioners by DSGMC. In the absence of
such communication, the offer from the DSGMC did not
exist. Hence, DSGMC is in breach of the orders of the
Division Bench and the orders which had directed that all
the five petitioners be re-employed within twelve weeks
of the order dated 09.12.2009. The said time got over
on 08.03.2010.
Due to the non-compliance the second limb of the order
becomes operative. Resultantly, the petitioners are
entitled to full pay and all perquisites from 04.03.2010
onwards till 30.01.2018. Respondent no. 4-DSGMC shall,
therefore, pay the petitioner nos. 1 to 5 their full pay and
all perquisites in terms of the order of the Division Bench
dated 08.02.2010. The said monies shall be paid to them
within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
The interest on the delay will be considered thereafter.
The due amounts shall be credited directly into the
bank accounts of the petitioners, who shall supply their
respective bank account details, to Respondent no.4-
DSGMC directly as well as through counsel. Respondent
no. 4 shall furnish the computation of the amounts due
to each of the petitioners within the next two weeks and
shall pay the due amounts by 13.12.2019.”
(emphasis added)
658 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

14. The appellant-DSGMC assailed the aforesaid order passed by the
learned Single Judge by filing a Letters Patent Appeal7 which was
dismissed vide order dated 15th March, 2023 for want of prosecution.
Hence, the order dated 1st October, 2019 has attained finality.
15. 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.
16. Thus, in the present appeals, the only issue which requires
adjudication is as to whether the appellant-DSGMC has any valid
ground so as to assail the impugned judgment of the High Court
dated 9th December, 2009, whereby the NDMC was directed to
reimburse the pay and perquisites including the pension and other
benefits accruing to the staff of the school and “then to recover
the same from the appellant-DSGMC”.
17. 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.
However, we find it difficult to sustain this argument which is fallacious
on the face of record. The closure which is contemplated in Rule 47
of the Delhi Education Rules has to be a valid closure, i.e., having
been carried out with the prior approval of the Director as provided
under Rule 46 of the Delhi Education Rules which reads as under:-

7 LPA No. 732 of 2019 in Majinder Singh Sora & Anr. v. Manju Tomar & Ors.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 659

New Delhi Municipal Council v. Manju Tomar and Other

“Rule 46. Closing down of a school or any class in
a school-
No managing committee shall close down a recognised
school, not being an unaided minority school, or an existing
class in such school without giving full justification and
without the prior approval of the Director, who shall, before
giving such an approval, consult the Advisory Board.”
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. As a result, we do not find any merit in Civil Appeal Nos. 7442-
7444 of 2012 preferred by the appellant-DSGMC, which are hereby
dismissed. No costs.
Civil Appeal Nos. 7440-7441 of 2012
21. The NDMC, being the appellant in these appeals, is primarily
aggrieved of the direction given by the Division Bench in the impugned
judgment dated 9th December, 2009, that it should bear the burden
of the pay and other service benefits accruing to the surplus school
staff including the pension pursuant to the illegal closure of the school
by the DSGMC. However, we may note that a clear direction was
given by the High Court in the impugned judgment that the appellant-
660 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

NDMC would be entitled to seek reimbursement of the entire amount
from the DSGMC, because it illegally closed the school without prior
approval of the appropriate authority.
22. This Court, while entertaining the special leave petitions, vide order
dated 7th July, 2010 had directed the appellant-NDMC to make
payment of the entire arrears of the salary/pension and other retiral
benefits to the respondents, i.e., staff of the school within three weeks.
During the course of submissions, learned counsel representing the
appellant-NDMC apprised the Court that the NDMC has already paid
the principal amount to the staff of the school and now the only issue
which survives is regarding the interest component which was kept
open for further consideration.
23. During the course of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant-
NDMC urged that since the reimbursement was made in the year
2010, DSGMC might take a defence of the recovery being barred
by limitation. However, we are of the firm view that since this Court,
while passing the order dated 7th July, 2010 has left the question of
reimbursement of the amount being paid by the appellant-NDMC open,
the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel representing the
appellant-NDMC that its endeavour to seek reimbursement of the
amount may be opposed with a plea of being barred by limitation, is
unfounded by this Court. Since the issue of seeking reimbursement
was left open with a specific observation being made in this regard
in the order dated 7th July, 2010, the bar of limitation would not come
in the way of the appellant-NDMC in seeking reimbursement of the
amounts paid to the staff of the school from the DSGMC.
24. Since the principal amount has already been paid by the appellant-
NDMC, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the
direction given by the Delhi High Court for payment of interest to
the respondents, i.e., staff of the school, in terms of the impugned
judgment.
25. Hence, we direct that appellant-NDMC shall pay all remaining dues
including interest to the respondents-staff of the school, within a
period of eight weeks from today.
26. It is clarified and reiterated that the appellant-NDMC shall be entitled
to take recourse of the appropriate remedy for reimbursement of the
amounts paid to respondents-staff of the school from the DSGMC,
in case the DSGMC voluntarily fails to reimburse the said amount.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 661

New Delhi Municipal Council v. Manju Tomar and Other

27. We also grant leave to the appellant-NDMC to seek impleadment
in the pending Contempt Petition No. 805 of 2016 before the High
Court of Delhi so as to seek a direction for reimbursement of these
amounts.
28. The Civil Appeal Nos. 7440-7441 of 2012 are accordingly disposed
of in the above terms. No costs.
29. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Civil Appeal Nos. 7440-7441 of 2012
disposed of.
Civil Appeal Nos. 7442-7444 of 2012
dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain