NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANOTHER  versus MANJU TOMAR AND OTHERS
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 650, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Unknown
Segment: Issues
[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