IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 17 , 2009 1. CWP No. 12920 of 2004 (O&M) Kamlesh Aggarwal and others vs. State of Haryana and others 2. CWP No. 7422 of 2008 Smt.Swatantar Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and others 3. CWP No. 2774 of 2007 Kamlesh Aggarwal vs. State of Haryana and others 4. CWP No. 17430 of 2008 Smt. Kaushal Kumari Gupta vs. State of Haryana and others Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. D.R.Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr.Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.5. Mr. J.K.Goel, Advocate for respondents No.6 and 7. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** Ajay Tewari, J. This order shall dispose of four writ petitions bearing CWP Nos. 12920 of 2004, CWP No. 7422 of 2008, CWP No. 2774 of 2007 and CWP No. 17430 of 2008. The facts are being taken from CWP No. 12920 of 2004. The undisputed facts which have emerged are that the JRD Aggarwal Girls School was at one point of time a flourishing CWP No. 12920 of 2004 -2- institution. However, because of various reasons including the decision of the State Government to make education free for girls as well as the politics of the trustees the school has fallen on bad days and today admittedly only about 200 students are studying therein. The petitioners are ex teachers/teachers who have raised a claim that their salary/retiral benefits have not been paid . It is also an admitted position that the District Education Officer has been the administrator of the school for the past more than three years. It is also not disputed that an administrator can be appointed for a period not exceeding three years and that period has elapsed. However, the District Education Officer who is present in person has informed me that he is administering the school only by default because the Managing Committee is not at all interested in taking on responsibility of running the school. It is also the case of the Managing Committee that they at various times have requested the Government to take over the school or to derecognise the same. This makes it clear that the management just wants to wash its hands from the entire story. I am told that there is a dispute regarding the principal of the school also but for the present purpose the Court has no concern with that aspect. Faced with this logjam where both the management and the Government are shying away from taking over the responsibility of the school, the only two concerns of this Court are, firstly, the rights of the children who are studying in the said school and secondly, the rights of the teachers to get the salary/retiral benefits. A broad consensus has emerged between the parties that in the present precarious condition it would be in the best interest of all if the school is closed down after this academic session so that at least the year of the students is not wasted. In the CWP No. 12920 of 2004 -3- circumstances the District Education Officer is directed to retain control of the school till the end of this academic session and give adequate notice to the guardians of the students to transfer their children to another school from the next academic session. He will also ensure that such students who are not admitted in any other school would be accommodated in some nearby Govt. school. After completion of this academic session the school will be closed down so that at least future liabilities can be stopped. Thereafter a period of two months will be granted to the management to devise ways and means of utilising the building and the premises and raising money to pay all the admitted debts. However, if after this period of two months no constructive suggestion emanates from the management thereafter the Deputy Commissioner will take steps to auction the premises by way of public auction and the funds so generated would be used to discharge the statutory and other liabilities of the institution. The remaining amount if any would be deposited in a permanent fixed deposit favouring respondent No.2 with the stipulation that the said amount can never be withdrawn by any body but only interest thereon can be used for the benefit of the community by its representatives. It has been brought to my notice that as regards the retirement dues of one of the petitioners is concerned, an RSA bearing No. 3642 of 2005 is pending. It is clarified that as regards the entitlement of the salary/retirement benefits of this petitioner is concerned, the same shall be decided in the pending RSA. With this agreed order these writ petitions are disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 17, 2009 sunita