Non payments of teachers: Delhi HC asks DSGMC not to alienate properties
Justice Anish Dayal also sought an undertaking from the committee not to put the properties on rental or license.
The court passed the order while dealing with a contempt petition over the failure of the DSGMC to make payment of arrears in accordance with the Sixth and Seventh Central Pay Commission aside from other allowances and retiral benefits to the teachers in schools run by Guru Harkrishan Public School Society.
The high court had previously held there was wilful disobedience of the order by the DSGMC.
"An affidavit will accordingly be filed by the DSGMC through the secretary and the GHPS Society through its secretary, that no third-party rights will be created on this land; no alienation shall happen; and it will not be provided for any purposes of rental or license which will compromise the title or possession of the properties in any which way," said the court on May 2.
The verdict further directed, "Notwithstanding the undertaking, the court directs that for no reason whatsoever, will these properties, i.e., 292 acre of land at Bigar and 15 acre of land at Shahdara be alienated nor any possessory rights be given to any party without prior permission of court and further, no encumbrance will be created without any prior permission of the court."
The court underlined the important of securing the properties, which seemed to be of large value and would help in shoring up the dues, amounting to around ₹400 crore, owed to the petitioners.
It also sought a report of valuation for the two parcels of land and certain other properties belonging to DSGC from a court-appointed valuer by September 7.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
19 hours ago
- NDTV
Consenting Adults Have Right To Choose Partners, Live Together: Delhi High Court
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has called the right of two consenting adults to choose each other as life partners and live together "a facet of their personal liberty and privacy" being immune to the family's disapproval. "The Supreme court has repeatedly affirmed this position and directed the police to safeguard such couples from intimidation or harm," Justice Sanjeev Narula said on August 5. The court, as a result, directed the police to provide protection to a young couple, who married against the wishes of their families and were now being threatened. "The right of two consenting adults to choose each other as life partners and to live together in peace is a facet of their personal liberty, privacy, and dignity protected under Article 21. Family disapproval cannot curtail that autonomy," the order highlighted. The couple sought the court's intervention to ensure their safety in living together, claiming threats, coercion and interference being extended by the family members. The court was urged to direct the woman's family not to harm them or interfere in their peaceful cohabitation. The plea said the woman's family was against their relationship and allegedly issued repeated threats of physical harm. It said due to the hostility and fearing for her safety, the woman left her parental home on July 18 after informing her mother about her intention to marry the man. The couple married in a temple on July 23 on their own free will and has been living together happily, it added. The high court then directed the station house office of the police station concerned to designate an official and sensitise him or her of the court order and provide immediate assistance to the couple in case of any complaint or threat. "The directions issued herein, particularly those concerning police protection, are purely preventive in nature, aimed at ensuring the petitioners' safety and safeguarding their right to life and liberty. They shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the truthfulness of the petitioners' claims, nor as any endorsement," it said. (Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
Hindustan Times
20 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Choice to marry someone from different faith safeguarded by Constitution: Delhi High Court
New Delhi The choice to marry someone from a different faith is safeguarded under the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, even if it challenges social norms and family expectations, the Delhi High Court has held. (Representative photo) The choice to marry someone from a different faith is safeguarded under the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, even if it challenges social norms and family expectations, the Delhi High Court has held, while directing the Delhi Police to continue protecting an interfaith couple facing threats from their families. A bench of justice Sanjeev Narula made the observation on August 8, while dealing with a plea filed by a 26-year-old Muslim man and a 25-year-old Hindu woman, seeking police protection and accommodation in a safe house. In a petition filed last month, the couple asserted that despite solemnising their marriage after a relationship of over seven years, there was strong opposition from the woman's family. The petition said that despite writing to the deputy commissioner of police for the southeast district on July 23, requesting police protection, the police forcibly separated the woman from her husband and detained her at Nirmal Chhaya Shelter Home on July 24. The plea stated that the woman married the man voluntarily, without any coercion. On July 25, the high court directed the DCP to look into the matter personally and, if the woman affirmed her wish to live with her husband, to ensure appropriate arrangements for the couple's safety. The counsel for the woman's father, on August 8, asserted that his client was deeply troubled by his daughter's decision to marry the man without his consent and that he was concerned for his daughter's welfare. Considering the contentions, the court directed Delhi Police to continue providing them protection and accommodation in a safe house, till they solemnise their marriage under the Special Marriage Act. The bench said that parents' anguish over their daughter choosing her life partner without consultation cannot eclipse the right of an adult to choose a life partner, since Article 21 of the Constitution safeguards an individual's right to marry a person of one's choice. 'The constitutional guarantee under Article 21 enables every adult citizen may shape the course of their own life, free from fear, coercion or unlawful restraint. The choice to marry, especially across lines of faith, may test the resilience of social norms and familial expectations, yet in law, it remains a matter of personal liberty and individual autonomy, immune from any external veto. While the anguish of a parent is understandable, it cannot eclipse the rights of a major to select their life partner,' the court said. It added, 'The court is mindful of the anguish of the girl's father, who opposes the relationship on grounds that he perceives as legitimate and rooted in his concern for his daughter's welfare. However, upon attaining the age of majority, the right to make decisions regarding marriage becomes the individual's personal prerogative. Parental preference, however well-intentioned, cannot legally override that autonomy.' Noting the couple's allegation of being forcibly separated, the court directed the DCP to submit a report on whether any unlawful separation had occurred and, if so, to identify the officer responsible. The direction came after the woman claimed she was taken to a shelter home by the police against her will, while the police maintained that no coercion, unlawful action, or procedural lapse had taken place. The matter will next be heard on September 12. The same bench, in a similar plea filed by another couple, also ruled that a family's disapproval cannot override the right of two consenting adults to choose each other as life partners and live together peacefully. 'The right of two consenting adults to choose each other as life partners and to live together in peace is a facet of their personal liberty, privacy, and dignity protected under Article 21. Family disapproval cannot curtail that autonomy,' the court said in an order on August 5.
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Hindustan Times
Adults have right to marry without family interference, says Delhi high court
The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that the personal liberty of two consenting adults to marry and live together peacefully is protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In a recent ruling, the court emphasised that family opposition cannot override this autonomy. The Delhi high court ordered police protection for a young couple who feared harassment from the woman's family.(File Photo/PTI) Justice Sanjeev Narula stated that the Supreme Court has consistently upheld this principle, directing law enforcement to protect couples from threats or coercion. In this case, the court ordered police protection for a young couple who feared harassment from the woman's family. The couple had solemnised their marriage on July 23, 2025, following Hindu rituals at an Arya Samaj trust in Delhi. They approached the court after the woman's parents allegedly tried to pressure her, despite her voluntary departure from her family home and her clear affirmation of the marriage during a police inquiry. That inquiry, initiated after a "missing" complaint, was later closed. To ensure their safety, the court instructed the local Station House Officer (SHO) to assign a beat officer, brief them on the court's directives, and provide the couple with emergency contact numbers. Any reported threats must be documented and addressed without delay. Justice Narula clarified that the court was not ruling on the veracity of the allegations but was solely focused on protecting the couple's fundamental rights to life, liberty, and dignity.
