S. N. Kapoor ( 1 ) HEARD. This revision petition is directed against an order refusing to reject the plaint dated 5/09/2001. The case of the petitioner is based on section 25 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (in short the "dse Act ). Section 25 of the DSE Act reads as under:- "25. Jurisdiction of civil courts barredno civil court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter in relation to which the Administrator or the Director or any other person authorised by the Administrator or director or any other officer or authority appointed or specified by or under this Act, is empowered by or under this Act to exercise any power, and no injunction shall be granted by any civil court in respect of anything which is done or intended to be done by or under this Act. " ( 2 ) IT would be appropriate here to quote Section 10 of the DSE Act as well, which reads as under:- "10. Salaries of employees (1) the scales of pay and allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and other prescribed benefits of the employees of a recognised private school shall not be less than those of the employees of the corresponding status in school run by the appropriate authority: PROVIDED that where the pay and allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and other prescribed benefits of the employees of any recognised private school are less than those of the employees of the corresponding status in the schools run by the appropriate authority, the appropriate authority shall direct, in writing, the managing committee of such school to bring the same up to the level of those employees of the corresponding status in schools run by the appropriate authority. " ( 3 ) SECTION 107 of the DSE Act being relevant is also being reproduced here as under:- "107. Fixation of pay (l) The initial pay of an employee, on first appointment, shall be fixed ordinarily at the minimum of the scale of pay: PROVIDED that a higher initial pay, in the specified scale of pay, may be given to a person by the appointing authority: PROVIDED further that no higher initial pay shall be granted in the case of an aided school except with the previous approval of the Director. (2) The pay of an employee or promotion of a higher grade or post shall be determined by, the same rules as are applicable to the employees of government School. " (Emphasis supplied) ( 4 ) APPARENTLY the submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the suit is barred by Section 25 appears to be justified. But the further scrutiny of the situation reveals otherwise, as would be evident hereinafter. ( 5 ) PLAINTIFF/respondent No. 1 has filed a suit for declaring that the respective employees of defendant no. 1/petitioner are entitled to the scale as mentioned the 5th Pay Commission Report with effect from 1st january, 1996 with arrears and interest thereon and sought direction to defendant No. 1/petitioner to make the payment of pay and its arrears to the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, This prayer was made on the ground that despite representation the petitioner failed to pay arrears of pay with effect from 1/01/1996 to 31/12/1997. Rather they took the stand that they would pay the arrears with effect from 1/01/1996 to 31/12/1997 only after the direction of the Director of Education. The Director of Education was approached for violation of the rules under the DSE Act. Defendant No. 2/respondent No. 2 in spite of representation made by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 did not take any action against defendant No. 1/petitioner either to de-recognise it or to compel it to pay the arrears. ( 6 ) THE case of defendant No. 1/petitioner was that defendant No. 1/petitioner was not in a position to pay arrears of pay because no help was being provided by the government and shortage of money. However, it is not in dispute that 40% school fee was increased stating that this fee was being increased in view of the 5th Pay commission Report. ( 7 ) THE plaintiff/respondent No. 1 further alleged that defendant No. 1/petitioner did not rightly fix the pay of the employees in accordance with the 4th Pay commission which remained effective from 1987 till 3 1/12/1995. Notice dated 3/06/1998 served on the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2 went unheeded and no action had been taken. Thereafter, the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed a suit in November, 1998. The petitioner took the plea that the suit was barred in view of provisions of Section 25 of the DSE Act as referred TO hereinabove. Notice dated 3/06/1998 served on the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2 went unheeded and no action had been taken. Thereafter, the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed a suit in November, 1998. The petitioner took the plea that the suit was barred in view of provisions of Section 25 of the DSE Act as referred TO hereinabove. ( 8 ) LEARNED senior counsel for the petitioner very fairly conceded that the petitioner could not pay the amount from 31/12/1997 for want of funds. It is apparent that in view of sub-Section (2) of Section 107, the pay of an employee, or promotion to a higher grade or post shall be determined by the same rules as are applicable to employees of Government School. This provision has obviously not been complied with by the petitioner. It is also not the case of the petitioner that defendant No. 2 had taken any action on the representation made by plaintiff/respondent No. 1. ( 9 ) IF in afore-mentioned circumstances learned trial Court relied upon the judgment in Dhulabhai etc. v. State of MP, AIR 1969 SC 78 as well as in view of sub-Section (2) of Section 107 of the DSE Act, it is not and could not be the case of the petitioner that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 were not entitled to get pay etc. in accordance with the 5th Pay Commission Report which was required to be implemented with effect from 1/01/1996. The learned trial Court was justified in relying upon the observations made in Union of India v. Seth Bhagwan Dass, 1992 RLR 487 in para 23, which read as under:- "23. Having regard to the various provisions of the Act, no adequate or sufficient remedy has been provided for against the inaction of the Director u/s. 4 (2) of the Act to do what the civil court would normally do in a suit. Moreover, no statutory appeal or revisions has been provided for. In the absence of any adequate remedy provided in the Act, in my opinion, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, civil court has every jurisdiction to entertain the suit. " ( 10 ) IN the case in hand, the school in question failed to comply with the conditions mentioned in Section 10 read with Section 107 (2) of the DSE Act. " ( 10 ) IN the case in hand, the school in question failed to comply with the conditions mentioned in Section 10 read with Section 107 (2) of the DSE Act. Having regard to the provisions of sub-Section (7) of Section 4 read with Section 10 (1) and Section 107 (2) of the DSE act, it is apparent that there is no adequate or sufficient remedy provided for against the inaction of the Director under Section 4 (4) of the DSE Act to do what the Civil Court would normally do in a civil suit. Since no remedy is provided in case the Director of Education or any other appropriate authority fails to take decision and issue requisite direction and to take follow up action to comply the direction to de-recognise the petitioner s school by any appeal against the inaction of the concerned authority, the suit could be filed and maintained. In view of the judgments in Dhulabhai etc. v. State of MP (supra) and Union of India v. Seth bhagwan Das, (supra), there does not appear any force in this petition. ( 11 ) SUPPOSING for the sake of arguments, it is accepted that the suit is barred by Section 25 of the DSE act, at least the petitioner was expected to give an undertaking to make the payment in terms of the provisions of Section 10 read with Section 107 (2) of the dse Act. They are not willing to do so. Since they claim that they do not have funds they are not supposed to pay though they have increased the fee on the pretext of 5th Pay Commission Report. It may further be mentioned that where there is a conflict between technical law and justice, justice should prevail, is the moral of the judgment in Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal, 2001 (7) Scale 616 . In such matters the approach has to be not merely to pick out any error of law through an academic angle, but to see whether injustice has resulted on account of any erroneous interpretation of law as well as inaction on the part of any educational authority under the Delhi School Education Act. In such matters the approach has to be not merely to pick out any error of law through an academic angle, but to see whether injustice has resulted on account of any erroneous interpretation of law as well as inaction on the part of any educational authority under the Delhi School Education Act. If justice became by-product of an erroneous view of law or inaction of authority under the Delhi School Education Act, this court is not supposed to ignore inaction on the part of the authorities under the Delhi School Education Act and to countenance with the injustice which is being done to the respondent on account of the inaction. Consequently, i do not find any force in this petition. However, in case the petitioner had given an undertaking to pay the amount in accordance with the Delhi School Education Act and the Director of Education had initiated appropriate proceedings against the petitioner in case of non-compliance of that undertaking, the position could have been different. But in absence of any such undertaking, I do not find any force in this revision petition. It is dismissed accordingly. ( 12 ) IN view of the above, the application is dismissed accordingly having been rendered infructuous.