JUDGMENT : Valmiki J. Mehta, J. 1. Petitioner-school by this writ petition impugns the orders dated 5.12.2002 and 6.10.2006 passed by the Deputy Director of Education-respondent no.1 and Director of Education-respondent No.2 respectively which direct payments be made to the respondent no.3-Ms. Shubh Chintika Malhotra of all monetary benefits payable to a teacher in a recognized school. 2. The dispute in the present case was with respect to respondent no.3 being transferred from a recognized school to an un-recognized school and the consequent dispute as to whether an employee of an unrecognized school is entitled to or not entitled to the benefits similar to the employees/teachers in recognized schools under the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973. This issue is now no longer res integra as Division Bench of this Court in the case of Social Jurist, a Civil Rights Group Vs. GNCT & Ors. 147 (2008) DLT 729 has held that Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 apply to all schools in Delhi, be they be recognized or unrecognized. Paras 12 to 15, 17 to 25, 29 and 33 of this judgment are relevant and the same read as under:- “12. The material facts which provide the basis of the present proceedings are not in serious dispute. It is not in dispute that a large number of educational institutions have been established in Delhi which neither have the permission of the Government nor the recognition of the appropriate authority for the same. According to the petitioner, there are nearly 10,000 such institutions in Delhi, while according to the respondent/MCD, the number does not exceed 2000. The Directorate of Education does not, however, have any data available with it as to the total number of institutions that have been unauthorizedly set up and are functioning without due and proper recognition. The Director of Education has on affidavit made the following candid admission in this regard: “3. That there are no norms available in the provision/Act/Rule for schools which are recognized. Primary schools are recognized by MCD, NDMC, Delhi Cantonment Board while recognition to middle, secondary and senior Secondary school is granted by Directorate of Education. 4. That no such survey has been conducted by Education Department regarding the unrecognized schools in Delhi. Most of the unrecognized schools in general are primary, pre-primary or play schools. Primary schools are recognized by MCD, NDMC, Delhi Cantonment Board while recognition to middle, secondary and senior Secondary school is granted by Directorate of Education. 4. That no such survey has been conducted by Education Department regarding the unrecognized schools in Delhi. Most of the unrecognized schools in general are primary, pre-primary or play schools. Since primary education is under the preview of local authority, so MCD, NDMC & Delhi Cantonment Board are the bodies dealing with recognition and other matter of these schools.” 13. What was however admitted by learned Counsel for the parties was that a very large number of educational institutions offering pre-primary, primary, secondary and higher secondary classes have been set up in Delhi which have neither the permission of the Government nor the recognition from the appropriate authority. The Director of Education has further stated on affidavit that no norms are applicable to such institutions, nor have these institutions been inspected or evaluated by any officer of the Directorate of Education. The irony is, that according to the Directorate of Education, the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 does not authorize the officers of the Education Department to either inspect or even enter such institutions for purposes of verifying the infrastructural and other facilities made available in the same to the students. The result is that these institutions are islands of authority subject to no control, inspection, supervision or directions of any statutory or non-statutory body or authority. The all important question that arises in that background is whether on a true and correct interpretation of the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, the hands off policy adopted by the Department of Education is justified. If one were to go by the affidavit filed on behalf of the Directorate of Education, the Department of Education is pleading nothing but helplessness in the matter on account of a lacuna in the legislation which according to their understanding does not empower them to act in the matter against such institutions setting up shops without the requisite infrastructural facilities, no matter the institutions may be endangering the lives of the students who get admitted to the same for various reasons and compulsions. 14. To the credit of Mr. 14. To the credit of Mr. Midha, whom we requested to appear and assist us on behalf of the Government of Delhi, we must mention that he departed from the line of defense taken by the Directorate of Education. He argued and in our opinion rightly so that the understanding of the Director of Education regarding the legal position in relation to the regulation of education in Delhi and in relation to the competence of the administrator to provide for planned development of school education in Delhi was not wholly correct. Mr. Midha contended that the scheme of the Act and in particular the provisions of Section 3 and 4 thereof left no manner of doubt that the administrator was competent to regulate education in 'all the schools in Delhi' and that no new school can be established and no higher class in any existing school started and no existing class closed down in any existing school except in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made there under. The argument that the Act envisaged two types of schools, namely, recognized and unrecognized was, according to Mr. Midha, wholly erroneous for after the commencement of the Act, there could be only one class of schools, namely, schools that have been permitted in terms of Section 3 read with Rule 44 of the Delhi School Education Act and the Rules. He also drew our attention to Section 28 of the Act which provides that the administrator was competent to frame rules to carry out the provisions of the Act and in particular to provide for the manner in which the education may be regulated. The rules can also provide for the condition which every existing school should be required to comply with and the requirements of establishment of a school or the opening of a higher class and/or closing down of an existing class in an existing school. Mr. Midha in that view fairly conceded that the Directorate of Education ought to have regulated the establishment of schools in Delhi for there was no question of any school being allowed to come up otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. Mr. Midha in that view fairly conceded that the Directorate of Education ought to have regulated the establishment of schools in Delhi for there was no question of any school being allowed to come up otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. But since the Act did not provide for a closure of any school, such of the schools as were unauthorized and/or unrecognized could be directed to be closed down by the concerned local authority on the ground of misuse of the property in which such schools were running. 15. Appearing for the Delhi Development Authority, Mr. Verma argued that the scheme of the Act did not permit two classes of schools as was the ground reality at present. He urged that Section 4(6) of the Act by a fiction recognized every school that was in existence on the date the Act came into force and subjected such schools to the rigors of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made there under. Proviso to Section 4(6) however authorizes the prescribed authority to withdraw recognition if the school failed to satisfy such conditions as are stipulated for recognition within a specified period. This implied that from the date of commencement of the Act, only such schools could come up as were permitted in terms of Section 3(2) of the Act and recognized in terms of Section 4. He also drew our attention to the provisions of Section 19 to argue that every school offering higher secondary education had to be affiliated to one or more of the Boards or Councils conducting such examination and to fulfill the conditions specified by the Board or Council and that every recognized primary or middle school had to prepare students for examination held by the local authority competent to hold the examination or by the Directorate of Education, Delhi as the case may be. 17. On behalf of the Association of unrecognized institutions, it was strenuously argued by Mr. Sinha that the right to establish a private educational institution was a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and was recognized to be so by judicial pronouncements on the subject. He further submitted that any regulatory control exercised by the State that fell foul of the said guarantee had to be necessarily declared unconstitutional. Sinha that the right to establish a private educational institution was a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and was recognized to be so by judicial pronouncements on the subject. He further submitted that any regulatory control exercised by the State that fell foul of the said guarantee had to be necessarily declared unconstitutional. He further contended that on a true and proper interpretation of the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, only such schools as were recognized fell under the purview of the Act and under the regulatory control of the administrator. Other unrecognized institutions established and functioning in Delhi were outside the purview of the Act. There was, Therefore, no question of directing any regulation of the said schools directly or indirectly nor could there be any mandamus to the authorities to do something that the Act did not envisage. It was further argued by Mr.Sinha that the unrecognized schools were doing great service and had become a necessity on account of the failure of the State to provide proper educational facilities in Delhi. He submitted that the schools were located in areas where the weaker sections of the society were residing and to which children from the middle and the lower middle class including those living in Jhuggi Jhopdi clusters were admitted. Insistence upon providing the infrastructure required for recognition under the Act would amount to shutting down the schools and would be tantamount to fixing an unreasonable standard and Therefore an unreasonable restriction on the right to establish a school. 18. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made at the bar and perused the record. The right to establish an educational institution is no doubt a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. At the same time, it goes without saying that in terms of Clause 6 of Article 19 of the Constitution, the said right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions. We need not dilate on this aspect any further for the legal position stands authoritatively settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka AIR2003SC355. The court has, in that case, among others, formulated the following two questions: (i) Is there a fundamental right to set up educational institutions and, if so, under which provision? The court has, in that case, among others, formulated the following two questions: (i) Is there a fundamental right to set up educational institutions and, if so, under which provision? (ii) In case of private institutions, can there be Government regulation and if so, to what extent? 19. Answering the first question extracted above in the affirmative, the Court held: “25. The establishment and running of an educational institution where a large number of persons are employed as teachers or administrative staff, and an activity is carried on that results in the imparting of knowledge to the students, must necessarily be regarded as an occupation, even if there is no element of profit generation. It is difficult to comprehended that education, per se, will not fall under any of the four expressions in Article 19(1)(g). "Occupation" would be an activity of a person undertaken as a means of livelihood or a mission in life. The above quoted observations in Sodan Singh's case correctly interpret the expression "occupation" in Article 19(1)(g). 26. The right to establish and maintain educational institutions may also be sourced to Article 26(a), which grants, in positive terms, the right to every religious denomination or any section thereof to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, subject to public order, morality and health. Education is a recognized head of charity. Therefore, religious denominations or sections thereof, which do not fall within the special categories carved out in Article 29(1) and 30(1), have the right to establish and maintain religious and educational institutions. This would allow members belonging to any religious denomination, including the majority religious community, to set up an educational institution. Given this, the phrase "private educational institution" as used in this judgment would include not only those educational institutions set up by the secular persons or bodies, but also educational institutions set up by religious denominations; the word "private" is used in contradistinction to government institutions.” 20. In so far as the second question is concerned, the Court held that the right to establish an educational institution could be regulated but such regulation was limited to only certain aspects and did not extend to fixing a rigid fee structure or dictating the formation and composition of the governing body or compulsory nomination of teachers and staff etc. The Court observed: “54. The Court observed: “54. The right to establish an educational institution can be regulated; but such regulatory measures must, in general, be to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards, atmosphere and infrastructure (including qualified staff) and the prevention of mal-administration by those in charge of management. The fixing of a rigid fee structure, dictating the formation and composition of a government body, compulsory nomination of teachers and staff for appointment or nominating students for admissions would be unacceptable restrictions. “21. The provisions of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 are meant to better organize and develop school education in Delhi and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Chapter II of the said Act deals with establishment, recognition, management of and aid to schools. Section 3 which is by far the most significant of the provisions contained in the Act reads as under: “3. Power of Administrator to Regulate Education in Schools - (1) The Administrator may regulate education in all the schools in Delhi in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under. (2) The Administrator may establish and maintain any school in Delhi or may permit any person or local authority to establish and maintain any school in Delhi, subject to compliance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under. (3) On and from the commencement of this Act and subject to the provisions of Clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution, the establishment of a new school or the opening of a higher class or the closing down of an existing class in any existing school in Delhi shall be subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under and any school or higher class established or opened otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act shall not be recognised by the appropriate authority.” 22. Section 4 of the Act deals with recognition of schools and empowers the appropriate authority to recognize any private school on an application made to it in the prescribed form. The proviso however forbids recognition of a school unless the conditions stipulated there under are satisfied. Section 4(1) may at this stage be extracted: “4. Section 4 of the Act deals with recognition of schools and empowers the appropriate authority to recognize any private school on an application made to it in the prescribed form. The proviso however forbids recognition of a school unless the conditions stipulated there under are satisfied. Section 4(1) may at this stage be extracted: “4. Recognition of Schools - (1) The appropriate authority may, on an application made to it in the prescribed for and in the prescribed manner, recognise any private school: Provided that no school shall be recognised unless - (a) it has adequate funds to ensure its financial stability and regular payment of salary and allowances to its employees; (b) it has a duly approved scheme of management as required by Section 5; (c) it has suitable or adequate accommodation and sanitary facilities having regard, among other factors, to the number, age and sex of the pupils attending it; (d) it provides for approved courses of study and efficient instruction; (e) it has teachers with prescribed qualifications; and (f) it has the prescribed facilities for physical education, library service, laboratory work, workshop practice or co-curricular activities.” 23. Sub-section 6 to Section 4 deals with schools existing on the date the Act came into force and recognises them by a fiction created under the said provision. It reads: “4. Recognition of Schools – (1) XXXX (2) XXXX (3) XXXX (4) XXXX (5) XXXX (6) Every existing school shall be deemed to have been recognized under this section and shall be subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under: Provided that where any such school does not satisfy any of the conditions specified in the proviso to Sub-section (1), the prescribed authority may require the school to satisfy such conditions and such other conditions as may be prescribed, within a specified period and if any such condition is not satisfied, recognition may be withdrawn from such school.” 24. A plain reading of the above provisions especially Section 3(1) supra would show that the administrator has the power to regulate education in all the schools in Delhi. The expression 'all the schools in Delhi' is significant and leaves no manner of doubt that the Act is not limited in its application only to recognized schools. A plain reading of the above provisions especially Section 3(1) supra would show that the administrator has the power to regulate education in all the schools in Delhi. The expression 'all the schools in Delhi' is significant and leaves no manner of doubt that the Act is not limited in its application only to recognized schools. The term 'recognized school' and 'school' have been separately defined by the Act in Section 2(t) and 2(u) in the following words: 2(t) "recognized school" means a school recognised by the appropriate authority; (u) "school" includes a pre-primary, primary, middle and higher secondary schools, and also includes any other institution which imparts education or training below the degree level, but does not include an institution which imparts technical education; 25. The language employed in Section 3 and the definition of the term 'School' in 2(u) supra would Therefore make it manifest that the power of the administrator to regulate education extends to not only recognized but all schools whether the same are recognized or unrecognized. We have Therefore no hesitation in rejecting the contention urged by Mr. Sinha that the Act is confined in its application to only recognized schools. 29. The following aspects therefore emerge from the above discussion: (i) The power of the administrator to regulate school education extends to all the schools in Delhi whether the same are recognized or unrecognized. (ii) A school can be established only with the permission of the administrator granted in terms of Section 3(2) of the Act and any school established contrary to the said provisions shall not be recognized by the appropriate authority. (iii) Recognition of the schools shall be granted only if the school satisfies the norms stipulated in Section 4(1) of the Act read with Rules 50 and 51 of the Rules framed under the Act. (iv) The appropriate authority competent to grant recognition may, in its discretion and for good and sufficient reasons, exempt provisionally any private school seeking recognition from one or more of the provisions of Rule 50 or 51 or both for such period as it may consider necessary. (iv) The appropriate authority competent to grant recognition may, in its discretion and for good and sufficient reasons, exempt provisionally any private school seeking recognition from one or more of the provisions of Rule 50 or 51 or both for such period as it may consider necessary. (v) If a school ceases to fulfill any requirement of the Act or any of the conditions specified in the Rules or fails to provide any facility specified in Rule 51, the appropriate authority may after giving the school a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action withdraw recognition in terms of Rule 56 which shall not be restored under Rule 57 unless the authority is satisfied that the reasons which led to the withdrawal have been removed and that in all other respects, the school complies with the provision of the Act. 33. Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel for the Association, vehemently argued that once the standards prescribed for recognition including the requirements of a proper building were enforced against the private unrecognized institutions, these institutions will not be able to comply with the said requirements and shall have to be closed down. Any such closure would, according to him, offend Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. We do not think so. The right to establish an educational institution is not absolute. The Parliament or the State Legislature, as the case may be, are competent to stipulate such regulatory measures as are considered necessary in public interest in terms of Clause 6 of Article 19(1)(g). The provisions of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 is a legislation that serves precisely that purpose. It regulates the establishment of educational institutions and their functioning. If the Parliament has, by law, stipulated the standards to be satisfied for establishing an educational institution and if those standards are in themselves reasonable and relevant to the object of ensuring that the institutions are institutions which provide a safe, secure and healthy environment for imparting education to children at different levels, we find it difficult to appreciate how those standards can be said to be prohibitive in nature so as to offend the guarantee contained in Article 19(1)(g). It is important to note that there is no challenge to the provisions of Section 4 of the Act or Rules 50 and 51 of the Education Rules which prescribe standards to be met by the institutions for the grant of recognition. Such being the position, the argument that the institutions can continue even without satisfying the basic requirements as stipulated under the statutory provisions must be rejected out of hand. It is true that one of the reasons that has resulted in the mushrooming of these unrecognized institutions is the failure on the part of the State to provide educational facilities but that failure cannot be remedied by allowing unsafe, unsatisfactory or wholly dysfunctional institutions to come up, no matter they are incapable of achieving the objective which the same are meant to achieve or become institutions that exploit the compulsion of the students for commercial gains. With education up to 14 years becoming a fundamental right, the State shall have not only to take appropriate steps for making available educational facilities in areas where the same do not exist, but also to ensure that till such time the State run schools are started in such areas, the private institutions do not fill up the vacuum only to exploit the failure of the State in doing what it ought to do. The State shall Therefore have to act on both the fronts as the task of providing adequate and satisfactory educational facilities is stupendous and may not be achieved by relying upon the State run institutions alone.” 3. Therefore, in my opinion, the issue argued by the parties is only academic because even if the respondent no.3 was a teacher in an unrecognized school, yet she was entitled to all benefits payable to a teacher equivalent as given to teachers in government schools as per Section 10(1) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. 4. The only issue remains is whether respondent no.3 is entitled to grant of all benefits from the date of her first employment in the year 1984 or only from 3 years prior to 1999 when she filed the first representation for claiming such benefits. Counsel for respondent no.3 states that respondent no.3 would be satisfied, in case she gets all monetary emoluments as payable to teachers in government schools w.e.f 1.7.1996 considering that the date of representation sent by respondent no.3 is 10.7.1999. Counsel for respondent no.3 states that respondent no.3 would be satisfied, in case she gets all monetary emoluments as payable to teachers in government schools w.e.f 1.7.1996 considering that the date of representation sent by respondent no.3 is 10.7.1999. In any case, Courts are disinclined to impose monetary liability for more than 3 years prior to the disputes arising because a limitation period for recovery of money is 3 years under the Limitation Act, 1963. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner sought to take benefit of Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 to argue that the arrears can only be granted for 3 months prior to the representation however I fail to understand that how at all in any manner Section 8(3) applies because that provision only deals with filing of an appeal within 3 months to the Delhi School Tribunal in case of removal of service of an employee or his reduction in rank and which is not an issue in the present case. 6. The writ petition is therefore dismissed and the impugned orders of the Director of Education dated 5.12.2002 and 6.10.2006 are sustained. Petitioner-school will grant the necessary monetary benefits to the respondent no.3 within a period of 3 months from today. The amount which will be paid within 3 months from today will be the amount due and payable to the respondent no.3 from 1.7.1996 and till the superannuation of respondent no.3 on 31.5.2000. Respondent no.3 will also be entitled to interest at 5% per annum simple from 1.7.1996 till a period of three months from today. In case, the amount due to the respondent no.3 is not paid by the petitioner-school within 3 months from today, thereafter, the respondent no.3 will be entitled to interest at 7 ½ per annum simple. Parties are left to bear their own costs.