IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No.42 of 2008 alongwith RSA No.43 of 2008 & CS No.57 of 2000. Date of decision: 13.05.2008. Mrs.P. Goldsmith( in all cases) …..Appellant -Versus- St.Paul’s Senior Sec.School (in RSA Nos.42 & 43/2008) The Diocese of Amritsar and others (in CS No.57 of 2000) ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Appellant: Mr.J.S.Bhogal, Senior Advocate with Mr.Suneet Goel, Advocate. For respondents: Mr.Naresh Kumar Sood, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J(oral) This case highlights the benefits of referring a dispute to an astute and respected mediator/conciliator in whom the parties repose faith and trust. Long standing disputes between the two sides have come to an end due to the intervention of Dr.Anil Wilson, former Vice Chancellor of H.P. University. The facts, in brief, are that Mrs.P. Goldsmith was Principal of St.Paul’s School, Palampur. This school is being run by the Diocese of Amritsar, (DOA) Church of North India (CNI). As per the Regulations of the School, the Principal was to retire at the age of 60 years. However, Mrs.P. Goldsmith claimed that the DOA had modified the Regulations and increased the retirement age to 65. She was given two extensions after attaining the age of 60 years and was retired on attaining the age of 62 years. According to the Management she was given extensions whereas according to Mrs.P.Goldsmith the extensions were actually ex-post facto. Mrs.Goldsmith 2 continued to occupy the Principal’s house in St.Paul’s School, Palampur even after her retirement. The Management of the School filed two suits against Mrs.P.Goldsmith. One suit bearing No.176/2000 titled as St.Paul’s Senior Secondary School vs. Mrs.P. Goldsmith was filed for the recovery of possession of the Principal’s residence in occupation of Mrs.P.Goldsmith and another Civil Suit being C.S. No.175 of 2000 was filed claiming recovery of use and occupation charges @ Rs.10,000/- per month w.e.f. 16.2.1999 when she ceased to be Principal of the school. The suits filed by the Management were decreed and a decree for possession was passed in Civil Suit No.176 of 2000 and Civil Suit No.175 of 2000 was decreed for recovery of Rs.7,63,667/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. with costs in favour of the Management of the School. In both cases Mrs.P. Goldsmith filed appeals which were dismissed by the District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. Thereafter, she has filed two RSAs being RSA Nos.42 & 43 of 2008. Mrs.P.Goldsmith in turn filed Civil Suit No.57 of 2000 in this Court wherein she prayed that a decree of Rs.10 lakhs on account of damages be passed in her favour and also prayed that the respondents be directed to treat her in service and the respondent Management of the School be restrained from implementing the Resolution of the Executive Committee dated 17.4.2000. She also prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the respondents not to interfere with her working as Principal of St.Paul’s Senior Secondary School, Palampur. The main dispute was with regard to the retirement age. According to the Mrs.P. Goldsmith she was to be retired at the age of 65 whereas according to the Management the retirement age was 60 years and she was granted two extensions and she was actually retired at the age of 62 years. 3 The aforesaid RSAs were listed before Justice Sanjay Karol on 28.4.2008 when counsel for Mrs.P.Goldsmith submitted that there is a possibility of an out of Court settlement. The matter was again taken up by the learned Judge on 2nd May, 2008 when it is recorded that the parties have in principal agreed to negotiate for arriving at an out of Court settlement. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for today. In between, the parties agreed to refer all their disputes to Dr.Anil Wilson and submitted all their long standing disputes, their claims and counter claims for settlement to him as a referee and they further agreed that they have full faith in him and agreed that any settlement arrived at by him would be acceptable to both the parties. The terms of the reference have been recorded by Dr.Anil Wilson and signed by both the parties. They read as follows: “There is a long-standing dispute leading to prolonged litigation between Mrs P. Goldsmity, ex-Principal of St Paul’s School, Palampur and Diocese of Amritsar, CNI through Rt Revd P.K. Samantaroy, Bishop of the Diocese of Amritsar CNI and Wg Cdr (Retd) I.A. Williams, present Principal of the said School. This litigation has now reached the Himachal High Court before the Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Karol, and at this stage these two parties have expressed a keen desire before the said Hon’ble Court that 1.They are keen to arrive at a settlement at the earliest because the present situation is not only causing anguish to both the parties but is doing incalculable harm to the good name of the School that has nourished, educated and empowered countless people though many generations. 2.Both parties are convinced that in order to conclude their long- standing dispute their claims and counter claims be examined by a knowledgeable Referee of repute and standing, who is also well conversant with administration in church related educational institutions and in whom they can repose full faith and confidence. 3.Both parties have solemnly affirmed, without any ambiguity or hesitation, that the decision of such a Referee shall be final and binding on both the parties. 4.Both parties have unambiguously and whole-heartedly affirmed that they have full faith and confidence in having Dr.Anil Wilson as the said 4 Referee who is fully competent and qualified to arrive at a just and equitable settlement of their dispute, which settlement shall be acceptable to both parties without any demur. Accordingly, the two parties have agreed to meet Dr Anil Wilson on May 9 and 10, 2008, in the Auckland House School, Shimla to press for their claims and counter claims” Dr.Anil Wilson, after going through the documents, hearing the parties and considering the matter in detail has given his report/settlement, the operative portion of the same reads as follows: “3.The above are only some of the more outstanding aspects of the grievances placed before me. However, having considered all aspects that were placed before me verbally (for which full opportunity was granted to both parties) as well as the documents that the two parties placed before me, and after thanking the two parties for the confidence reposed in me, I give the following settlement: A. Mrs.P.Goldsmith must terminate her illegal occupation of the said house and hand over vacant possession of the same to the Management of the said School (Chairman: Rt Revd P.K. Samantaroy, Bishop of the Diocese of Amritsar CNI and Principal: Wg Cdr (Retd) I.A. Williams), as well as any articles of the School which may be in her possession. A maximum period of two months for this purpose is adequate and just. B. As a gesture of goodwill and Christian reconciliation, the entire amount that has been decreed against Mrs. P.Goldsmith on 27.6.2005 by the Civil Judge Palampur and upheld by the District Judge Kangra on 31.10.2007 (Rs.7,63,667=00 along with interest @ 6% per annum) for the use and occupation, from 16.2.1999 to 27.6.2005, of the residence of the principal of said School, be waived off by the Management of the School. C. In a similar spirit the School shall not raise any further claim against Mrs P.Goldsmith for her illegal occupancy of the said house from 28.6.2005 onwards. D. Mrs P Goldsmith’s claim of compensation (Rupees ten lacs, with interest from 31.10.2001, which has not been adjudicated upon so far by any Court) shall similarly stand rescinded. E. All pending legal cases in all/any court of law shall be withdrawn. F. This settlement has been divided into parts numbered ‘A’ to ‘E’ only for the sake of convenience. It shall be deemed to be one indivisible whole which shall be applicable in its entirety in the following sequence: (i) Mrs.P. goldsmith shall hand over vacant possession of the said Principal’s House and any other articles of the School in her possession 5 (ii) Thereafter the Management of the School shall waive off the decreed amount against Mrs.P. Goldsmith and concurrently Mrs P. Goldsmith shall rescind her claim against the said School. (iii) The two parties shall, through due legal process, withdraw all cases pending in any/all courts of law and declare that no claims/dues of any kind exist between them anymore.” Today when the matter was listed before me in the earlier half of the day even before opening the report of Dr.Anil Wilson, I had asked the parties whether they agree to abide by the report of Dr.Anil Wilson. I am happy to state that both the parties even without reading the report stated that they would be bound by the terms of the settlement arrived at by Dr.Anil Wilson. The report was opened by me and read out to both the parties. Both the parties have accepted the report without any reservation whatsoever. This shows the true spirit of conciliation which has permeated these proceedings. Disputes which could have gone for many more years have settled due to the faith of parties in the referee. The Court places on record its appreciation for the approach that both the parties have adopted. The Court also places on record its appreciation for the untiring efforts and valuable assistance rendered by Dr.Anil Wilson. In view of the above, the matter stands settled between the parties and all the three litigations i.e. RSA Nos.42 & 43 of 2008 and CS No.57 of 2000 are disposed of in terms of the settlement. To clarify the matter so that there is no ambiguity left, this Court passes the following directions: 1. Mrs.P. Goldsmith in terms of the settlement shall handover possession of the house and land appurtenant thereto allotted to her as Principal of St.Paul’s Senior Secondary School, Palampur to the Diocese of Amritsar through Wing Commander (Retd.) I.A. Williams on or before 14th July, 2008. 2. In case Mrs.P. Goldsmith handovers vacant and peaceful possession of the aforesaid building to Wing Commander 6 (Retd.) I.A. Williams or any other person authorized by the Diocese of Amritsar in this behalf on or before 14th July, 2008 the decrees passed against her in Civil Suit Nos.175 & 176 of 2000 shall be deemed to be set-aside and become unexecutable, meaning thereby that the Management shall have no right to execute the same or claim any amount in terms of the decrees passed. 3. Mrs.P.Goldsmith withdraws the Civil Suit No.57 of 2000 which is dismissed as withdrawn. The aforesaid settlement is taken on record and shall be read as part and parcel of this order in all the three matters, namely, RSA Nos.42 & 43 of 2008 and Civil Suit No.57 of 2000. The parties shall be entitled to refund of the Court fees as per the Rules. May 13, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge