PILs for those who are unable to come to court: Delhi HC

Image
Press Trust of India New Delhi
Last Updated : Sep 30 2019 | 3:50 PM IST

A PIL can be preferred for those who are unable to come to court, the Delhi High Court said while dismissing an NGO's plea seeking disbursal of salaries to primary teachers of schools run by North and East Delhi municipal corporations.

A bench comprising Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice C Hari Shankar said the teachers can always approach the court if their salaries have not been paid to them.

"We see no reason to entertain this writ petition as a public interest litigation (PIL) on behalf of those who are themselves educated. Teachers can always approach this court if their salaries are not paid to them. They can always initiate action in accordance with law," the bench said.

The high court said a PIL can be preferred normally for persons who are unable to come to court either due to ignorance or because of poverty viz. belonging to downtrodden class, illiterate persons, etc.

For such types of petitioners or public, the writ petition at their behest is tenable in law, it said.

"Those persons who are otherwise well educated, who are teachers, and teaching others, can always approach the concerned court over non-payment of their salaries or emoluments. Hence, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition. With these observations, this writ petition is hereby dismissed," the bench said.

The PIL was moved by NGO Social Jurist on Friday, seeking directions to North and East Delhi municipal corporations to disburse the salaries of March and April to the primary teachers and doctors employed by them.

It said while the teachers have not been paid for these two months, in February they received meagre amounts like Rs 4 and Rs 8 as salaries after tax deduction.

The petition had contended that non-payment of the teachers' salaries would adversely affect the education of thousands of students studying in the schools run by the two corporations.

It had also claimed that this would amount to a violation of the Right to Education Act, 2009, as well as the fundamental right to livelihood guaranteed under the Constitution.

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Sep 30 2019 | 3:50 PM IST

Next Story