You are here: Home » PTI Stories » National » News
Business Standard

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

Press Trust of India  |  New Delhi 

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 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 Act, 2009, as well as the fundamental right to livelihood guaranteed under the Constitution.

(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

First Published: Mon, September 30 2019. 15:50 IST
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU