Shiv Dayal Rai Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. and Ors.

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 1355 of 2011

¶5

Shiv Dayal Rai, S/o Late Shri Siya Ram Rai, aged about 60 years, Occupation: Head Master (in-charge) Upper Division Teacher in the Primary ‘B’ Seam School Colliery, District Korea, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. South Eastern Coal Fields Limited, Through: The Chairman -Cum- Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶9

2. The General Manager, South Eastern Coal Fields Limited, Hasdeo Area, P.O. South Jhagrakhand Tah Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.).

¶10

3. Singhi Collieries Education Society Jhagrakhand, Through the Principal Higher Secondary School Jhagrakhand (A School governed by Singhi Collieries Education Society Jhagrakhand), Tehsil Manendragarh, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents

¶11

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. P. Tiwari, Advocate

¶13

For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶15

10.07.2024

¶16

By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶17

“ 10.1. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records in relation to the case of the petitioner.

¶18

10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable writ and set aside the decision communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 08/04/2010 (Annexure P-1).

¶19

10.3 That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to absorb the petitioner in other School of SECL or in other schools which are financially

¶20

-2-

¶21

aided by the SECL or in other schools which are financially aided by the SECL as well as to treat the service of the petitioner as continue from very beginning with all consequential benefits.

¶22

10.4 That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ or direction commanding the respondent authorities to make payment of wages for the period starting from August 1993 till disposal of this petition at the pay scale not less than the pay scale as is available in Government Educational Institutions along with interest.

¶23

10.5. Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioner.”

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that initially, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Lower Division Teacher in the year 1981 in the Primary School “B” Seam Colliery. He further submitted that on 19.02.1986, the services of the petitioner were regularized and he became Assistant Teacher. He also submitted that the subject school was under the control of respondent No.3/Singhi Colliery Education Society, Jhagrakhand, Tehsil Manendragarh, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. He contended that the salary and accommodation were provided with the aid of respondent No.1 / South Eastern Coalfields Limited (for short, SECL) to the employees of the subject school. He further contended that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Upper Division Teacher vide order dated 01.03.1989. Later on, the subject school was closed for want of recognition in the year 1993, thereafter, the petitioner made a representation before the respondent authorities for releasing the arrears of wages and absorption in any other school. Pursuant to the order dated 11.03.2010 passed by this Court, fresh representation was made by the petitioner on 22.03.2010 before the respondent authorities which was rejected vide communication dated 08.04.2010 (Annexure P-1), stating therein that they are not liable to make any payment; the further reason cited by the respondent

¶25

-3-

¶26

authorities was that the management of SECL is not the competent authority as they have no control over the subject school.

¶27

1. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 19994 of 2000 vide order 19.02.2001 left the question open to be decided by the High Court whether the schools are run by the State or Central Government. Accordingly, the High Court in W.P. No. 3409 of 2000 very clearly held that the teachers are not workmen under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and it was held that the relationship of employer and employee has not been found.

¶28

1. Placing reliance on the judgment passed in W.P. No. 685 of 2006 decided on 31.01.2019, it is submitted that it has been similarly held by this Court that there is no relationship of master and servant between the parties and the petitioners, in that case, were teachers in a school run by Singhi Collieries Education Society. It is further submitted that the principle of res judicata is applicable in this matter. In another petition filed by Bharat Singh Baghel and 42 Others vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and Others in W.P. No.2667 of 2006 decided on 13.7.2010, it has been observed that the question of the relationship of employer and employee between the teachers of Singhi Collieries Education Society and SECL has already been decided in W.P. No.3409 of 2009 that such relationship is not present, hence, it cannot be re-agitated and the same has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 33 of 2011. Hence, the question raised in this petition cannot be reconsidered and no relief can be granted to the petitioner; thus, he prayed that the instant petition may be dismissed.

¶29

1. Learned State counsel appearing for respondent No.1 formally objects to the

¶30

-4-

¶31

petition and prays for its dismissal.

¶32

1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the documents.

¶33

1. It has been previously decided in a number of writ petitions that there does not exist any relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and respondent authorities and according to the terms agreed with the parties in MOU dated 21.03.1995, it was stated that the management of SECL was not directly concerned with the society of the teachers and the matter was discussed as a special case for goodwill. On that basis, the monetary aid was given to the Educational Society.

¶34

1. In the case of S.C. Chandra vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2007) 8 SCC

¶35

279 , it has been held in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 as under:-

¶36

'11. The proprietary secondary school is defined under Section 2(d) of the Act. The State Government can declare a particular school as proprietary secondary school under Section 19 of the Act on fulfilling certain conditions but the basic thing is that the entire finance will have to be burdened by the trust, association, corporate body, individual or group of individuals. By that the employees of the school will not be State Government employees.

¶37

12 . A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand supported by the affidavit of Shri Rajendra Nath Tripathy, Regional Deputy Director of Education, South Chhota Nagpur Division, Ranchi and in Para 12 of the counter-affidavit it was pointed out that in order to fulfill the constitutional mandate that all children between 6-14 years of age shall be given free and compulsory education, the Jharkhand Government has given consent and directed the authorities concerned to take the students of this school and admit them in State Committee managed schools or in other government schools within the same area in equivalent classes in which they were studying. Copy of the letter dated 15.3.2003 has been annexed as Annexure R-1. Therefore, the Government of Jharkhand in order to fulfill the constitutional mandate has got these students admitted to various schools. Therefore, the studies of the students have not been affected.

¶38

13. So far as issuance of mandamus to the State Government for taking over of the proprietary school is concerned, that cannot be issued because the proprietary school as defined under Section 2 (d) read with Section 19 of the Act will have to make a request to the State of Jharkhand that they will bear all the financial responsibilities. If the Managing Committee makes a request to this effect to the State of Jharkhand, then

¶39

-5-

¶40

the Government may consider but at present there is no such offer by the Managing Committee and as such no direction can be given to the State of Jharkhand to grant recognition to proprietary school because nobody is prepared to take the financial responsibilities of the management of the school. Hence, no direction can be issued to the State Government to take over the management of the school.'

¶41

1. Therefore, in view of the clear principle laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court is not in a position to dictate the respondent authorities to revise the MOU dated 29.03.1995, as it is a policy matter and the decision can be taken only by competent authority. As per the pronouncements of the Courts so far, it is very clearly held that the role of respondent No. 2 is limited in providing grant-in-aid to Singhi Collieries Education Society. Thus, it being the fact of the relation between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be entertained.

¶42

1. After overall consideration, I am of the view that this petition is without any substance and is hereby dismissed . No costs.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶45

Nadim

Shiv Dayal Rai v. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Dayal Rai v. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swati Pandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dhobi Das Ratre Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

(Deleted) Praveen Kumar Philip (Died) Vs State Of C.g. and Ors.

Sanjay Singh Vs South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

Deepti Namdeo and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Basant Kumar Sonwani and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.