Sh. Ashok Kumar Maheshwari vs. Director Of Education And Ors.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Pronounced on: 17 November, 2023

+ W.P.(C) 3592/2022 & CM APPL. 10582/2022 & CM APPL.
44173/2023
ANJALI VAID AND ORS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nikhilesh Kumar, Advocate

versus

ADARSH WORLD SCHOOL AND ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Samdarshi Sanjay and Mr. Ashish
Kr. Sharma, Advocates for R-1 and
R-2
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Ms. Manisha and Mr. Hitanshu
Mishra, Advocates for DOE
Mr. V. Balaji and Mr. Nizamudeen,
Advocates for DOE

+ W.P.(C) 8686/2022 & CM APPL. 26198/2022 & CM APPL.
33894/2022 & CM APL.5289/2023 & CM APPL. 14301/2023 & CM
APPL. 14302/2023 & CM APPL. 14303/2023
SMT RITU SINGHAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nikhilesh Kumar, Advocate

versus

GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Ms. Manisha and Mr. Hitanshu
Mishra, Advocates for R-1
Mr. V. K. Tandon and Mr. Pradeep
Kumar, Advocates for R-2
Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Advocate
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 1 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

+ W.P.(C) 7349/2023
DILIP SINGH AND ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Niyati Sharma and Mr. Saurabh
K. Kaushik, Advocates

versus

GEETA BAL BHARTI SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL
& ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Priyanka Garg, Advocate for R-1
and R-2
Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC. With Ms.
Palak Rohmetra, Ms. Laavanya
Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr.
Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates for
DOE
+ W.P.(C) 13270/2022
SATINDER TANDON ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Mr. Anuj
Aggarwal, Ms. Shreya Kukreti, Mr.
Kumar Utkarsh, Ms. Shradha
Adhikari and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates
versus

PRUDENCE SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, Advocate for
DOE

+ W.P.(C) 10904/2023
MANJU SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarsh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates
versus
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 2 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

RAVINDRA PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Madhav Khurana, Ms. Jyoti
Taneja, Mr. Samarth, Ms. Ishita and
Mr. Aakash, Advocates for R-1
Ms. Latika Choudhury, Advocate for
DOE
+ W.P.(C) 7402/2018 & CM APPL. 36034/2023
UMESH GAUBA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Mr. Anuj
Aggarwal, Ms. Shreya Kukreti, Mr.
Kumar Utkarsh, Ms. Shradha
Adhikari and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates
versus

MODERN CHILD PUBLIC SR SEC SCHOOL
(RECOGNIZED) & ANR ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Udesh Puri and Mr. K. P. Sundar
Rao, Advocates for School
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Ms. Manisha and Mr. Hitanshu
Mishra, Advocates for DOE
Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, Advocate for
DOE

+ W.P.(C) 10121/2018 & CM APPL. 39503/2018
SAMARTH SHIKSHA SAMITI ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Priyanka Garg, Advocate

versus

THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION
& ANR ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Latika Choudhury, Advocate for
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 3 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

DOE
Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, ASC with Ms.
Sheenu Priya, Mr. Sudhir Kumar
Shukla, Mr. Muhammad Zaid, Mr.
Sudhir and Mr. Sumit Choudhary,
Advocates for GNCTD
+ W.P.(C) 10221/2018
SH. ASHOK KUMAR MAHESHWARI ..... Petitioner
Through:

versus

DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, Advocate for
DOE
Ms. Priyanka Garg, Advocate for R-2

+ W.P.(C) 24/2019 & CM APPL. 30696/2019 & CM APPL.54961/2022
& CM APPL. 54962/2022 & CM APL.54974/2022 & CM APPL.
54975/2022
SH. NIRANJAN LAL AND ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarsh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates
versus

D. A. V. PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anurag Lakhotia and Mr. Udit
Dwivedi, Advocates for R-1 and R-2
Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Advocate
for DOE
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Ms. Manisha and Mr. Hitanshu
Mishra, Advocates for DOE

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 4 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

+ W.P.(C) 16556/2022
MRS. SAVITA KALRA AND OTHERS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarsh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates

versus

DAV PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anurag Lakhotia and Mr. Udit
Dwivedi, Advocates for R-1 and R-2
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Ms. Manisha and Mr. Hitanshu
Mishra, Advocates for DOE
Mr. V. Balaji and Mr. Nizamudeen,
Advocates for DOE
+ W.P.(C) 5925/2023
MS.POONAM MITTAL & ANR. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarsh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates

versus

GEETA BAL BHARTI SENIOR SECONDARY
SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Priyanka Garg, Advocate for R-1
Ms. Latika Choudhury, Advocate for
DOE
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Ms. Manisha and Mr. Hitanshu
Mishra, Advocates for DOE
+ W.P.(C) 4563/2021
RAVINDER KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashim Vachher, Mr. Vinayak
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 5 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Uniyal and Mr. Kunal Lakra,
Advocates
versus

BALVANTRAY MEHTA VIDYA BHAWAN ANGURIDEVI
SHERSINGH MEMORIAL ACADEMY - MORNING SHIFT &
ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Kala, Advocate for R-
1
Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC. With Ms.
Palak Rohmetra, Ms. Laavanya
Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr.
Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates for
DOE
Ms. Latika Choudhury, Advocate for
DOE

+ W.P.(C) 11619/2021 & CM APPL. 35915/2021 & CM APPL.
41443/2021
MINI MONTEIRO & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Mr. Anuj
Aggarwal, Ms. Shreya Kukreti, Mr.
Kumar Utkarsh, Ms. Shradha
Adhikari and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates

versus

GURUSHARAN CONVENT SCHOOL & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Romy Chako, Mr. Jenis Francis,
Mr. Rahul Sarkar and Mr. Bindeshwar
Sahu, Advocates for R-1 and R-2
Ms. Latika Choudhury, Advocate for
DOE

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 6 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

+ W.P.(C) 10152/2022 & CM APPL. 29447/2022 & CM APPL.
13933/2023
KESHU RANI SHARMA AND ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravin Rao and Mr. Akshit Rao,
Advocates

versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Advocate
for DOE
Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, Advocate for
DOE
Mr. Pramod Gupta, Ms. Sanya Jain,
Ms. Utkarsha Srivastava, Ms. Pranjal
Dhankar and Ms. Nicole, Advocates
for R-3 and R-4

+ W.P.(C) 14599/2022
SANGEETA PURI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarksh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates

versus

AHLCON PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pulkit Tare and Mr. Aditya
Shekhar, Advocates for R-1
Mr. V. Balaji and Mr. Nizamudeen,
Advocates for DOE

+ W.P.(C) 14929/2022 & CM APPL. 2539/2023 & CM APPL.
2541/2023
RENU ARORA AND ORS ..... Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 7 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarksh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates

versus

ST. MARGARET SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL
& ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC. With Ms.
Palak Rohmetra, Ms. Laavanya
Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr.
Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates for
DOE
Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, Advocate for
DOE
+ W.P.(C) 15614/2022
ASMA SYED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarksh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates

versus

ARWACHIN BHARTI BHAWAN SENIOR SECONDARY
SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Latika Choudhury, Advocate for
DOE

+ W.P.(C) 15865/2022 & CM APPL. 23315/2023
MRS. REKHA WADHAWAN AND ORS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarksh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates

versus
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 8 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

YUVASHAKTI MODEL SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pramod Gupta, Ms. Sanya Jain,
Ms. Utkarsha Srivastava, Ms. Pranjal
Dhankar and Ms. Nicole, Advocates
for R-1
Ms. Latika Choudhury, Advocate for
DOE
+ W.P.(C) 17738/2022
NEELAM KAUSHIK ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Manoranjani Shaw, Advocate
along with petitioner in person

versus

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Latika Choudhury, Advocate for
DOE

+ W.P.(C) 155/2023
MRS. ARATI BHATIA AND OTHERS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarksh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates

versus

GD GOENKA PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Ms. Manisha and Mr. Hitanshu
Mishra, Advocates for DOE
Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Advocate
for DOE
+ W.P.(C) 707/2023
MS. SURABHI MEHTA ..... Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 9 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarsh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates

versus

DAV PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anurag Lakhotia and Mr. Udit
Dwivedi, Advocates for R-1 and R-2
Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Advocate
for DOE
+ W.P.(C) 1120/2023
MRS. NEETA KHANNA & ANR. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarsh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates

versus

DAV PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anurag Lakhotia and Mr. Udit
Dwivedi, Advocates for R-1 and R-2
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Ms. Manisha and Mr. Hitanshu
Mishra, Advocates for DOE
Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, Advocate for
DOE

+ W.P.(C) 1124/2023
BIMLA BABBAR & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarsh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates

versus
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 10 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

DAV PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anurag Lakhotia and Mr. Udit
Dwivedi, Advocates for R-1 and R-2
Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Advocate
for DOE
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Ms. Manisha and Mr. Hitanshu
Mishra, Advocates for DOE

+ W.P.(C) 1161/2023
MRS KRISHNA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarsh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates
versus

DAV PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anurag Lakhotia and Mr. Udit
Dwivedi, Advocates for R-1 and R-2
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Ms. Manisha and Mr. Hitanshu
Mishra, Advocates for DOE

+ W.P.(C) 710/2023
MRS. MADHU ARORA & ANR. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarsh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates
versus

DAV PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anurag Lakhotia and Mr. Udit
Dwivedi, Advocates for R-1 and R-2
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 11 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Tyagi, Ms. Manisha and Mr. Hitanshu
Mishra, Advocates for DOE
Mr. V. Balaji and Mr. Nizamudeen,
Advocates for DOE
+ W.P.(C) 732/2023
MRS. SUDHA MEHTA & ANR. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarsh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates
versus

DAV PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anurag Lakhotia and Mr. Udit
Dwivedi, Advocates for R-1 and R-2
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Ms. Manisha and Mr. Hitanshu
Mishra, Advocates for DOE

+ W.P.(C) 712/2023
MRS. NORIN SHARMA & ANR. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarsh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates
versus

AHLCON PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pulkit Tare and Mr. Aditya
Shekhar, Advocates for R-1
Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC. With Ms.
Palak Rohmetra, Ms. Laavanya
Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr.
Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates for
DOE
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Ms. Manisha and Mr. Hitanshu
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 12 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Mishra, Advocates for DOE

+ W.P.(C) 1917/2023
MRS. MALA TULI & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarsh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates

versus

GD GOENKA PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Advocate
for DOE
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Ms. Manisha and Mr. Hitanshu
Mishra, Advocates for DOE

+ W.P.(C) 2076/2023
MRS. JYOTI SHARMA & ANR. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarsh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates
versus

GD GOENKA PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC. With Ms.
Palak Rohmetra, Ms. Laavanya
Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr.
Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates for
DOE
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Ms. Manisha and Mr. Hitanshu
Mishra, Advocates for DOE

+ W.P.(C) 2090/2023
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 13 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

MRS. REKHA JARREL & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarsh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates

versus

AHLCON PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pulkit Tare and Mr. Aditya
Shekhar, Advocates for R-1
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Ms. Manisha and Mr. Hitanshu
Mishra, Advocates for DOE

+ W.P.(C) 2091/2023
MRS. PRATIBHA KULSHRESTHA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarsh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates

versus

AHLCON PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pulkit Tare and Mr. Aditya
Shekhar, Advocates for R-1
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Ms. Manisha and Mr. Hitanshu
Mishra, Advocates for DOE
Mr. V. Balaji and Mr. Nizamudeen,
Advocates for DOE

+ W.P.(C) 2229/2023
MRS. KUSUM GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarsh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 14 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Advocates

versus

DAV PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anurag Lakhotia and Mr. Udit
Dwivedi, Advocates for R-1 and R-2


+ W.P.(C) 4321/2023
VIKRAM ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarsh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates

versus

AHLCON PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pulkit Tare and Mr. Aditya
Shekhar, Advocates for R-1
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Ms. Manisha and Mr. Hitanshu
Mishra, Advocates for DOE
Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, Advocate for
DOE

+ W.P.(C) 4778/2023
URMIL ARORA AND ORTHERS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarsh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates

versus

GEETA BAL BHARTI SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL & ANR.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 15 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Priyanka Garg, Advocate for R-1
Ms. Latika Choudhury, Advocate for
DOE
+ W.P.(C) 4793/2023
MRS. ANITA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarsh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates

versus

RYAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Romy Chako, Mr. Jenis Francis,
Mr. Rahul Sarkar and Mr. Bindeshwar
Sahu, Advocates
Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, Advocate for
DOE

+ W.P.(C) 5290/2023
VANDANA MALIK AND OTHERS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarsh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates

versus

RYAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Romy Chako, Mr. Jenis Francis,
Mr. Rahul Sarkar and Mr. Bindeshwar
Sahu, Advocates
Mr. V. Balaji and Mr. Nizamudeen,
Advocates for DOE

+ W.P.(C) 5717/2023
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 16 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

VINITA BALONI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarsh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates

versus

AHLCON PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pulkit Tare and Mr. Aditya
Shekhar, Advocates for R-1
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Ms. Manisha and Mr. Hitanshu
Mishra, Advocates for DOE
+ W.P.(C) 5767/2023
BHAVAYA TEHRI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarsh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates
versus

AHLCON PUBLICSCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Ms. Manisha and Mr. Hitanshu
Mishra, Advocates for DOE
Mr. V. Balaji and Mr. Nizamudeen,
Advocates for DOE

+ W.P.(C) 6447/2023
SULEKHA DAS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nikhilesh Kumar, Advocate


versus

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 17 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

ASN SR. SECONDARY SCHOOL AND ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Ms. Manisha and Mr. Hitanshu
Mishra, Advocates for DOE
Mr. V. Balaji and Mr. Nizamudeen,
Advocates for DOE


+ W.P.(C) 6465/2023
MONICA KAPAHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nikhilesh Kumar, Advocate


versus

ASN SR. SECONDARY SCHOOL AND ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Ms. Manisha and Mr. Hitanshu
Mishra, Advocates for DOE
Ms. Latika Choudhury, Advocate for
DOE

+ W.P.(C) 6486/2023
AHILYA MINOCHA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nikhilesh Kumar, Advocate

versus

ASN SR. SECONDARY SCHOOL AND ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Ms. Manisha and Mr. Hitanshu
Mishra, Advocates for DOE

+ W.P.(C) 10557/2023
MR. RAVINDRA KUMAR TANWAR AND
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 18 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

OTHERS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarsh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates

versus

DELHI POLICE PUBLIC SCHOOL AND
OTHERS ..... Respondents
Through:

+ W.P.(C) 10584/2023
CHARANJEET KAUR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nikhilesh Kumar, Advocate


versus

GURU HARKRISHAN PUBLIC SCHOOL AND
ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Abinash K. Mishra and Mr.
Gaurav Kr. Pandey, Advocates for R-
2 to R-4
+ W.P.(C) 803/2019
SHAMA PARVEEN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarsh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates

versus

SANATAN DHARAM VIDYA BHAWAN ..... Respondent
Through:

+ W.P.(C) 5565/2022 & CM APPL. 16557/2022
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 19 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

MRS. MAMTA KATARIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarsh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates

versus

ST PAULS DIOCESAN SCHOOL & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Prakhar Sharma and Mr. Swapnil
Choudhary, Advocates for R-1 and R-
2
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Ms. Manisha and Mr. Hitanshu
Mishra, Advocates for DOE

+ W.P.(C) 5587/2022 & CM APPL. 16593/2022
MRS. SUSHMITA MASSEY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarsh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates

versus

ST PAULS DIOCESAN SCHOOL & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Prakhar Sharma and Mr. Swapnil
Choudhary, Advocates for R-1 and R-
2
Ms. Latika Choudhury, Advocate for
DOE
+ W.P.(C) 6333/2020
MS URMILA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashim Vachher, Mr. Vinayak
Uniyal and Mr. Kunal Lakra,
Advocates

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 20 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

versus

BALVANTRAY MEHTA VIDYA BHAWAN ANGURIDEVI
SHERSINGH MEMORIAL ACADEMY MORNING SHIFT & ORS.
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Ms. Manisha and Mr. Hitanshu
Mishra, Advocates for DOE


+ W.P.(C) 6317/2023 & CM APPL. 44169/2023 & CM APPL.
44170/2023
SUNITA BHATIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Kumar and Mr. Shailender
Sharma, Advocates

versus

DAV PUBLIC SCHOOL AND OTHERS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. yoti
Tyagi, Ms. Manisha and Mr. Hitanshu
Mishra, Advocates for DOE
Ms. Latika Choudhury, Advocate for
DOE

+ W.P.(C) 11276/2023
MRS SHIKHA MEHRA & ANR. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarsh and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates

versus

YUVASHAKTI MODEL SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pramod Gupta, Ms. Sanya Jain,
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 21 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Ms. Utkarsha Srivastava, Ms. Pranjal
Dhankar and Ms. Nicole, Advocates
for R-1
Mr. V. Balaji and Mr. Nizamudeen,
Advocates for DOE

+ W.P.(C) 11225/2021 & CM APPL. 3746/2023
VISHWA NATH PRASAD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Mr. Anuj
Aggarwal, Ms. Shreya Kukreti, Mr.
Kumar Utkarsh, Ms. Shradha
Adhikari and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates
versus

BAL BHAVAN PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sudhir Naagar and Mr. Digvijay
Chaudhary, Advocates for R-1
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. yoti
Tyagi, Ms. Manisha and Mr. Hitanshu
Mishra, Advocates for DOE
Mr. V. Balaji and Mr. Nizamudeen,
Advocates for DOE

+ W.P.(C) 6848/2023
ANNIE DEAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shekhar Nanavaty, Advocate

versus

ST MARTIN DIOCESAN SCHOOL AND ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Ms. Manisha and Mr. Hitanshu


Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 22 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

J U D G M E N T

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
1. This batch of writ petitions have been filed by various petitioners
employed in the respondent schools at various Teaching and Non-teaching
posts such as TGT, PET, PGT, PRT, Librarian, Assistant Teacher, NTT,
Librarian, Lab Attendant, Lab Assistant, Sports Attendant, Assistant
Librarian, Instructor Dance, Driver, Maid, Sweeper, Aaya, Yoga Teacher,
Peon, Electrician, Mali, Housekeeper, Nurse etc. against the respondent
schools, and also against the Government of NCT of Delhi through the
Directorate of Education.
2. The petitioners by way of the above said petitions are seeking benefits
th th
of the 6 Central Pay Commission (hereinafter ―6 CPC‖) along with the
th
arrears, benefits under the 7 Central Pay Commission (hereinafter
th
―7 CPC‖) along with the arrears, and retirement benefits such as gratuity,
leave encashment, Dearness Allowance (hereinafter ―DA‖), Medical
Allowance (hereinafter ―MA‖), House Rent Allowances (hereinafter
―HRA‖), Travel Allowances (hereinafter ―TA‖), etc., along with the interests
th
and costs which are due as per the guidelines of 7 CPC. Some of the
petitioners have also sought the benefits of Modified Assured Career
Progression Scheme (hereinafter ―MACP‖).
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 23 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

3. The petitioners in the connected petitions seek similar reliefs,
therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to list out the particulars, which
have been gathered from these writ petitions in following manner: —

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 24 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 25 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 26 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 27 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 28 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 29 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 30 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 31 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 32 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 33 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 34 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 35 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 36 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 37 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 38 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 39 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 40 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 41 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 42 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 43 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 44 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 45 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 46 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 47 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 48 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

4. The instant batch of petitions are bifurcated into the following
categories:
1. First set of writ petition pertain to the allegations made on
behalf of some of the petitioners with respect to the failure
on the part of the respondent schools and Directorate of
Education (―hereinafter ―DoE‖) in proper implementation of
th
the recommendations of the 6 CPC which has led to non-
payment of arrears.
2. Second set of writ petition pertains to the submissions made
on behalf of some of the petitioners that they are entitled to
th
the salary and arrears, as per the recommendations of 7
CPC, and the same has not been implemented upon them,
and in some cases only partially implemented.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 49 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

3. Third set of writ petition pertains to the grievances of the
petitioners who are retired and are seeking the arrears of
retirement/terminal benefits as per the recommendations of
th th
6 and 7 CPC such as DA, TA, MA etc.
5. It is the unanimous submissions of the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that the respondent schools, contrary to the
notifications issued by the DoE, have unnecessarily held the salaries and
other consequential benefits of the Teaching and Non-Teaching staff, for
which they are legally entitled to.
6. Pursuant to the alleged inaction and non-compliance of the directions
of DoE on behalf of the respondent schools, the petitioners have prayed
before this Court for issuance of directions to the respondent schools to pay
the petitioners their salaries, retirement/terminal benefits and arrears along
th th
with the interests and costs accrued in terms of the 6 CPC and 7 CPC.
7. Since the grievance of the petitioners in this batch of petitions is
similar/identical, this Court deems it appropriate to decide the issues framed
hereinbelow by way of this common judgment. Hence, for the sake of
convenience and for the purposes of adjudication of the peculiar issues
involved, this Court has culled out the facts from writ petition bearing W.P.
(C) No. 3592/2022.
FACTUAL MATRIX
8. The petition bearing W.P (C) No. 3592/2022, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking the
following reliefs:
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 50 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

― a) Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction, directing the
th
Respondent No. 1 and 2 to implement the 7 Pay Commission as
directed by the Respondent No.3 vide order dated 17.10.2017
w.e.f. 1.1.2016 and consequently direct the Respondent No. 2
th
and 3 to pay all arrears as per 7 Pay Commission along with
interest from 1.1.2016 till payment to the Petitioners No. 1 to 6;
b) Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction, directing the
th
Respondent No. 1 and 2 to release arrears towards 7 Pay
Commission along with interest to Petitioner Nos. 7 to 13 from
1.1.2016 to September 2019;
c) Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction, directing the
Respondent No.3, after hearing both the parties, pass a
speaking and reasoned order on the complaint dated 13.3.2021
within a period of four weeks;
d) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon‟ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
present case. ‖

9. The petitioners in the instant writ petition are seeking direction to
th
implement the recommendation of 7 CPC and to pay arrears along with the
interests, etc. The petitioners are stated to be the permanent teachers of
respondent no. 1, namely Adarsh World School which is a private unaided
recognized school and is run by the respondent no. 2 society, namely Sri
Sankara Education Society. The respondent no. 3 is the Education
Department, i.e., the Directorate of Education which regulates and governs
the functioning of the schools recognized by it.
10. It is stated that the respondent no. 3 passed an order bearing no.
th
DE.15(318)/PSB/2016/19786, dated 17 October 2017, whereby, it directed
th
all the unaided private recognized school to implement 7 CPC
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 51 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

st
recommendation w.e.f., 1 January 2016, and also framed guidelines for the
same.

11. By way of the above said order, the respondent no. 3 directed to pay
st th
the first installment by 31 January 2018, and second installment by 30
th
June 2018. The respondent no. 3 again issued an order dated 9 October
2019, thereby, directing all the recognized unaided private schools to
th
comply with the directions to implement the recommendation of 7 CPC.
Thereafter, in October 2019, the respondent no. 1 & 2, implemented the
th
recommendation of 7 CPC and paid the salary in terms of the
th
recommendation of 7 CPC.
12. It has been stated by the petitioners that, the respondent school paid
the salary as per the guidelines only to the petitioner nos. 7 to 13, however,
th
petitioner nos. 1 to 6 were not paid in terms of 7 CPC. Further, the
th
respondent nos. 1 & 2 did not pay the arrears of 7 CPC to the petitioner
st
nos. 7 to 13 from 1 January 2016, till September 2019.
13. Meanwhile, in January 2019, the respondent no. 1 convened a meeting
and informed the petitioners and other employees that they will take 50% as
cash back from their salary, to which the petitioners opposed vehemently
and refused.
th
14. Pursuant to the above, the petitioners lodged a complaint dated 13
March 2021, before the respondent no. 3. Subsequently, a representation
nd
dated 22 November 2021, was made before the respondent no. 3 requesting
th
it to pass a direction to the respondent no. 1 & 2, to implement the 7 CPC
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 52 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

recommendation. The said representation was also sent to the respondent no.
1, but to no avail.

15. Thereafter, the respondent no. 3, in response to the RTI application
th
made by the petitioners, sent a reply dated 6 December 2021, and enclosed
st
a letter dated 1 October 2021, written to the respondent no. 1, wherein, the
DoE had communicated to the respondent school regarding the complaint
made by the petitioners against the respondent school.
16. The petitioners have further stated that the respondent no. 3 has
neither passed any speaking order nor has taken any decision on the
nd
representation dated 22 November 2021, hence, aggrieved by the same, the
petitioners have approached this Court seeking implementation of the
th
recommendations as per the 7 CPC, in their favour, claiming that they are
legally entitled to the same.

SUBMISSIONS

(On behalf of the petitioners)
17. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that
th
the non-implementation of the 7 CPC recommendations by the respondent
no. 1 & 2 despite notification by the respondent no. 3 DoE, is a blatant
violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
th
18. It is submitted that the respondent DoE had passed an order dated 17
October 2017, whereby, it had directed all the private unaided recognized
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 53 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

schools, such as the respondent no. 1, to implement the recommendations of
th
the 7 CPC, to its employee.

19. It is further submitted that despite the above said directions issued by
the DoE, the respondent school has failed to comply with the same in its true
spirit. The said direction has not been fully implemented till date qua the
petitioner nos. 1 to 6. The respondent no. 1 school has adopted pick and
choose method illegally and arbitrarily, since it has implemented the above
said directions only qua the petitioner nos. 7 to 13.
20. It is submitted that the petitioners are entitled for equal pay in
th
accordance with the guidelines of 7 CPC and the same is mandated by the
statutory provision mentioned under Section 10 of the Delhi School
Education Act, 1973, (hereinafter ―DSE‖).
21. It is also submitted that according to Section 10 of the DSE, a
recognized private school‘s pay scale and allowances, medical services,
pension, gratuity, provident fund, and other permitted benefits must not be
less than those of the employees in the same position at the schools run by
the appropriate authority.
22. It is further submitted that violation of such express provisions is a
flagrant abuse of the law and the same is also arbitrary in nature.
23. It is submitted that the petitioners are entitled to the arrears of their
st
benefits/salaries w.e.f. 1 January 2016, and the respondent no. 1 school is
duty bound to implement the same to all its employees in terms of the
th
guidelines recommended in the 7 CPC.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 54 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

24. It is submitted that the respondent no. 1 being an unaided private
recognized school, has an obligation enjoined upon it under the DSE that it
cannot evade its statutory responsibility and is bound to pay the statutory
dues to the petitioners.
25. It is submitted that all the similarly situated schools have implemented
th
the 7 CPC and have also cleared the arrears. It is thus, imperative for the
th
respondent nos. 2 and 3 to implement the 7 CPC and clear all the arrears
towards the same.
26. It is also submitted that the denial of any such implementation as
submitted above, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India as well as of Section 10 of DSE.
27. It is submitted that the respondent school apart from not implementing
the recommendations, are also illegally taking cash back from the petitioners
from their salary, and such type of actions is unlawful and amounts to
extortion. It is submitted that this type of practice needs to be stopped and
such exploitation of the teachers/employees is to be viewed seriously.
28. It is submitted that the respondent school has initiated disciplinary
proceedings against some of the petitioners and the same is baseless due to
the reason that it has been initiated as a counterblast to the instant petition.
29. It is submitted that the teachers of Private Unaided or Private Unaided
Minority Schools are entitled for the same perks and salary at par with the
employee of government schools at the same position. It is further submitted
that the conduct of the respondent unaided minority schools in not adhering
to the mandate of the statute is a gross abuse of law.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 55 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

30. It is submitted that the law of limitation is not applicable to the facts
and circumstances of the present case, and in support of his arguments, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment
passed in the matter of Keraleeya Samajam v. Pratibha Dattatray Kulkarni ,
2021 SCC OnLine SC 853 ; Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1
SCC 618 ; Kuttamparampath Sudha Nair v. Sri Sathya Sai Vidya Vihar,
2021 SCC OnLine Del 2511 and Frank Anthony Public School
Employees' Assn. v. Union of India, (1986) 4 SCC 707 .
31. It is submitted that and the observations made in the matter of State of
Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 , is misplaced as in that case
the notification was challenged after a period of 14 years before the High
Court unlike in the instant petition.
32. Therefore, in view of the foregoing submissions, it is submitted that
the instant petition may be allowed and the reliefs as prayed for be granted.
(On behalf of the respondent nos. 1 & 2)
33. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 & 2
vehemently opposed the instant petition and submitted that the same is liable
to be dismissed on the ground of limitation and also being devoid of any
merits.
34. It is submitted that the writ petition seeking the aforesaid directions
have been filed in February 2022, therefore, after the period of 3 years from
th th
17 October 2017, when the DoE issued guidelines for implementation of 7
CPC. Henceforth, this Court has to first examine the issue whether the
petitioners have approached the Court after substantial delay and laches. In
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 56 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

support of its arguments, the respondent has relied upon the judgments State
of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 and Chennai
Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu,
(2014) 4 SCC 108 .
35. It is submitted that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, has the discretion to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a
party who files writ petition after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty
of laches. In such cases, the Court should exercise such discretion with
utmost caution and care.
36. It is submitted that the respondent no. 1 & 2 are conceding to the fact
that they are bound by the provisions of DSE, however, the obligations
towards such mandatory provisions could not be fulfilled due to some major
hindrances on the part of the DoE, i.e., the respondent no. 3.
37. It is submitted that the respondent school could not adhere to the
th
statutory provisions in implementing the recommendations of the 7 CPC in
its entirety due to the lack of funds available with them.
38. It is submitted that the respondent school has made numerous requests
to the DoE to hike the tuition fees due to the economic difficulties it is
facing, but to no avail. Further, due to the denial by the respondent no. 3
DoE to not hike the tuition fees, the school is unable to release the arrears of
st
petitioner nos. 7 to 13, w.e.f. 1 January 2016, up to September 2019, and
st
enhance the salaries and other allowances of petitioner nos. 1 to 6 w.e.f. 1
January 2016, till date.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 57 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

39. It is submitted that the respondent no. 1 & 2, in compliance of Rule
180 (1) of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (hereinafter ―DSER‖), have
been regularly filing its (i) financial accounts, receipts and payment accounts
along with the income and expenditure, and balance sheet duly audited by a
Chartered Accountant; (ii) budget estimates of receipts and payments for
that particular session; (iii) enrolment of students, (iv) certificate of
scholarship concessions given by school; (v) staff statement as on the end of
a particular financial year, (vi) schedule of fee for that session & (vii)
statement of disbursement of salary. It is therefore submitted that the
respondent no. 1 & 2 has been adhering to the statutory mandate under the
DSE and DSER.
40. It is also submitted that from the bare perusal of the financial
statement for the year 2019-2020, it is apparent that the respondent no. 2 had
an amount of Rs. 56,18,789,04/-, in excess of expenditure over income.
Then, the respondent no. 2 had an amount of Rs. 4,60,377.39/- in excess of
expenditure over income; for the year 2020-2021. Further, the respondent
no. 2 had an amount of Rs. 29,82,452.10/- in excess of expenditure over
income; for the year 2021-2022.
41. It is further submitted that in the preceding 3 financial years, the
respondent no. 2 has been running into losses and has not been able to meet
its expenditures, and the same is evident from the abovementioned financial
statements.
42. It is also submitted that during the period of pandemic, the respondent
school had to suffer from the economic slowdown. During the said period,
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 58 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

th th
DoE had issued various guidelines vide order dated 18 April 2020, 13
th st
August 2020, 28 August 2020 and 1 July 2021, and the respondent school
despite being unable to meet the expenses sufficiently, duly abided by the
same.
43. It is further submitted the issue of financial crunch has been brought
into the knowledge of the DoE numerous times and despite that, it has been
adamant to not hike the tuition fee or any other component to recover the
losses.
44. It is submitted that in absence of collection of school fees and other
components as per the directions issued by the respondent no. 3, the
collection of funds decreased substantially, thereby, effecting the financial
position of the respondent no. 1, leading to difficulty in complying with
th
directions to implement the recommendations of the 7 CPC.
45. It is further submitted that in order to cover the gap between the
income and expenditure, and to generate funds, the respondent no. 2 made a
proposal for enhancement of fee for the academic session 2022-23, however,
no enhancement has been approved so far.
46. It is submitted that no cash backs are being taken from the petitioners
and the same is merely a baseless allegation against the respondent school.
Further, the respondent no. 2 is making payments towards the salaries of the
petitioners in compliance to the directions issued by the respondent no. 3
DoE, only after making statutory deductions.
47. It is submitted that the respondent school is unable to meet its day-to-
day expenditures and hence, the prayer of the petitioners as to their
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 59 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

th
entitlement under the 7 CPC, are not denied but the respondent no. 1 & 2
undertakes to pay in the event of either the pending application for
enhancement of tuition fee is allowed by the respondent no. 3 or they are
able to arrange funds from other sources.
48. It is therefore submitted that in view of the foregoing submissions, the
instant petition is liable to be dismissed.

(On behalf of the respondent no. 3)
49. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3 submitted
that the respondent no. 1 is an unaided private school which is recognized by
the DoE under the provisions of DSE and DSER. The respondent no. 2, i.e.,
the managing committee of respondent no. 1 school is bound to comply with
the provisions of DSE and DSER, and also by the orders and notifications
issued by the DoE.
50. It is submitted that the managing committee of the respondent school
is the appointing authority of its employees and is bound to follow the
statutory provisions of the DSE and DSER in managing the day-to-day
affairs of the school and to release all the benefits to its employees which are
envisaged in DSE and DSER, and the directions issued by the respondent
no. 3 in this regard from time to time.
51. It is submitted that as per sub-rule (xviii) of Rule 50 of DSER, the
respondent no. 3, DoE may pass direction to any private unaided recognized
school to furnish such reports and information as may be required by the
Director from time to time, and to comply with such instructions of the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 60 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

appropriate authority or the Director, as may be issued to secure the
fulfillment of the condition of recognition of school or the removal of
deficiencies in the working of the school.
52. It is also submitted that the respondent no. 3, school has to abide by
the terms and conditions of the employment and provisions of Section 10 of
DSE which prescribes that a recognized private school‘s pay scale and
allowances, medical services, pension, gratuity, provident fund, and other
permitted benefits should not be less than those of the employees in the same
position in the schools run by the appropriate authority.
53. It is submitted that the DoE has issued various office orders with
th
respect to the implementation of 7 CPC recommendations in the schools
th
including private unaided schools. DoE vide order dated 25 August 2017,
issued directions to the private unaided schools for implementation of
th st
recommendation of 7 CPC w.e.f., 1 January 2016, in their schools and to
pay the salaries, allowances etc. to its employees.
54. It is further submitted that similar directions were also issued by the
th
DoE vide order dated 9 October 2019, whereby, the managing committees
of all the private unaided schools were directed to implement the Central
Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, with respect to their regular
employees of the corresponding status as adopted by DoE for employees of
the school owned by appropriate authority.
55. Therefore, in view of the foregoing submissions, it is submitted that
the respondent no. 1 school is bound to fix the pay of the petitioners in terms
th st
of 7 CPC w.e.f. 1 January 2016, and to pay their salaries and arrears
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 61 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

accordingly. Henceforth, the instant petition may be allowed and the reliefs
as prayed for may be granted by this Court.

56. In rejoinder, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that it is
a matter of inquiry for the respondent no. 3 to scrutinize the financials of
respondent no. 1 and 2 as well as the allegation pertaining to paucity of
funds of the respondent school. It is submitted that if there was scarcity of
funds then nothing prevented the respondent school to apply for the
enhancement of fee in the year 2017 or 2018 or 2019 or 2020 or 2021. It is
therefore submitted that the application filed by the respondent school for
hike in the tuition fee is only an afterthought of the respondent school, and
the respondent school is merely trying to evade from its liability and
responsibility, to which it is obligated to comply with.
57. In the present batch, the petitioners have filed their respective writ
petitions, wherein, they have raised their pleas that the arrears of salaries and
th
other benefits have not been paid to them as per the recommendations of 6
th
and 7 CPC. The respondents have filed their respective counter affidavits
and the petitioners have also filed their rejoinders. The written submissions
filed by the petitioners and the respondents in their respective petitions are
also on record.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
58. The matter was heard at length with arguments advanced by the
learned counsels on both sides. This Court has also perused the entire
material on record and has duly considered the factual scenario of the matter,
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 62 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

judicial pronouncements relied on by the parties as well as pleadings
presented by the learned counsel of the parties.

59. It is pertinent to mention herein that by way of this combined
judgment, this Court will be dealing with various issues pertaining to the
present batch of petitions. Upon perusal of the contents of the petitions, as
enumerated in the tabulated figure mentioned hereinabove, this Court has
been able to draw out the following common issues required to be
adjudicated in this petition:
th
1. Applicability of the recommendations of 7 CPC on the
recognized private unaided schools and recognized private
th
unaided minority schools along with the arrears of 6 CPC
(salaries, arrears of salaries and retirement/terminal
benefits).
2. Delay and laches –
i. in claiming the arrears of retirement/terminal
benefits;
th
ii. in claiming the arrears of salaries qua the 6
CPC;
iii. in claiming the arrears of salaries, allowances etc.
th
qua the 7 CPC.
60. Before proceeding to discuss the issues and relevant legal propositions
involved qua the instant batch of petitions, it is prudent to set out the
relevant facts and submissions advanced on behalf of the parties in their
pleadings and during the course of arguments.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 63 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

61. It is the case of the petitioners that even though the DoE has
th
implemented the recommendations of 7 CPC upon the employees of the
recognized private unaided schools and recognized private unaided minority
schools, there is still willful and intentional disobedience on behalf of the
respondent schools and their management and they have not been willing to
comply with the directions of the DoE.
th
62. Pursuant to recommendations of the 7 CPC, respondent DoE issued
th
notification dated 17 October 2017, whereby, all the private recognized
schools were asked to implement the same. The relevant portion of the said
notification has been reproduced herein for reference:
― …In continuation of this Directorate's
OrderNo.DE.15(318)/PSB/2016/18117 dated 25/08/2017 and
in exercise of the powers conferred under section 17(3)and
section 24(3), of the Delhi School, Education Act, 1973 read
with sub sections 3, 4 and 5 of Section 18 of the Delhi School
Education Act, 1973 and with rules 50, 177 and 180 of the
Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 and in continuation of the
previousordersNo,DE.15/Act/DuggaI.Com/203/99/23039-
23988 dated 15.12.1999, F.DE15/Act/2K/243/KKK/883-1982
dated 10.02.2005, DE.15/Act/2006/738-798dated 02.02.2006,
relevant paras of F.DE/15 (56)/Act/2009/778 dated11.02.2009,
F.DE-15/ACT-I/WPC-4109/13/6750 dated 19.02.2016,
F.DE·15/ACT-I/WPC-4109/PART/13/7905-7913 dated
16.04,2016 &F,DE/PSB/2017/16604 dated 03/07/2017, I,
Saumya Gupta, Director of Education, hereby issue following
directions to all the Unaided Private Recognized Schools in the
National Capital Territory of Delhi for the implementation of
th
7 Central Pay Commission's Recommendations under
Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules,2016 with effect
from 01.01.2016.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 64 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

1. General Instruction for ALL Private Unaided Recognized
Schools, irrespective of land status:-
(a) A fee hike is not mandatory for recognized unaided
schools in the NCT of Delhi.
(b) All schools must, first of all, explore the possibility of
utilizing the existing reserves to meet any shortfall in
payment of salaries and allowances, as a consequence of
increase in the salaries and allowances of employees.
(c) The schools should not consider the increase in fee to
be the only source of augmenting their revenue. They
should also venture upon other permissible measures for
increasing revenue receipts.
(d) Interest on deposits made as a condition precedent to
the recognition of the schools and as pledged in favour of
the Government should also be utilized for payment of
arrears in the present case.
(e) A part of reserve fund which has not been utilized for
years together may also be used to meet the short fall
before proposing a fee hike.
(f) Fees/funds collected from the parents/students shall be
utilized strictly in accordance with rules 176 and 177 of
the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. No amount
whatsoever shall be transferred from the recognized
unaided school fund of a school to the society or the trust
or any other institution.
(g) The tuition fee shall be so determined as to cover the
standard cost of establishment including provisions for
D.A., bonus, etc., and all terminal benefits as also the
expenditure of revenue nature concerning the curricular
activities. No fees in excess of the amount so determined
or determinable shall be charged from the
students/parents.
(h) No school student, who is appearing in Board
examination, shall be denied admit card, school leaving
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 65 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

certificate or any other document, or be disallowed from
appearing in the Board Examination on account of any
non-payment or delayed payment arising out of this order.
(i) Every recognized unaided school covered by the Act,
shall maintain the accounts on the principles of account
applicable to non-business organization/not-for-profit
organization as per Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles (GAAP). Such schools shall prepare their
financial statement consisting of Balance Sheet, Profit &
Loss Account and Receipt and Payment Account every
year as per proforma prescribed by the department vide
order No. F.DE-IS/ACT-I/WPC-4109/Part/13/790S-
7913dated 16/04/2016.
(j) Every recognized unaided school covered by the act,
shall file a statement of fees latest by 31" March every
year before the ensuing session under section 17(3) of the
Act as per proforma prescribed by the department vide
order no. F./DE/PSB/2017/16604dated 03/07/2017.
(k) Though, increase in tuition fee is not the only option to
implement the recommendations of 7th Central Pay
Commission's Recommendations, nevertheless, if the
Managing Committee of the School after exploring and
exhausting all the possibilities as per the conditions
mentioned above feels it necessary to increase the tuition
fee ,the managing committee of the school shall hold a
meeting with the group of teachers and parents which
would include at least one parent representative from each
section of the school and will present the detailed budget
of the school, financial statements of the previous year,
requirements of funds for implementation of 7th Central
Pay Commission's Recommendations, availability of
cash/reserve fund/savings with the School Fund account
etc as well as present the proposal for fee hike, if any with
justification with all the documents mentioned in Annexure
A. Inputs would be solicited from the parents and teachers'
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 66 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

representatives. Either the managing committee can take
their suggestions into consideration and revise their
proposal, or record their dissent. Director of Education's
nominee (DE's Nominee) to remain present in the meeting.
The minutes and attendance sheet of this meeting
countersigned by DE's Nominee including details of
parents invited for meeting along with photographs of the
meetings shall be submitted by the school to the
DDE(District) concerned. It is hereby clarified that
presentation of the proposal for increase in fee before the
representatives of the parents comprising of each section
shall not be construed as seeking the approval of the
parents representatives in view of the judgment dated
12/08/2011 of Hon'ble High Court in WPC7777/2009
titled as Delhi Abhibhavak Mahasangh Vs. GNCTD.
(L) For the purpose of increase in tuition fee w.e.f.
01/01/2016 in terms of mid-session increase, the approval
of the undersigned is not required under sub-section (3) of
section 17 of DSEAR,1973 in light of the order dated
30.03.2017 of Hon'ble High Court in WPC2637/17 in the
matter of Action Committee Unaided Recognized Schools
Vs Directorate of Education.

The relevant part of Hon'ble High Court Order is as
under:-
"Keepinq in view the importance and relevance of 31st
March, 2017 in section 17(3J if the Act find to balance
the equities, this Court directs that in the event the
Seventh Par Commission is directed to be implemented
in private unaided schools bv the respondent, then
petitioner schools would have an option within two weeks
from the date of implementation of the Seventh Pay
Commission to intimate the revised fee schedule and the
same shall be taken as having been filed on 3d·
March,2017. " … …‖
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 67 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

63. It has been also submitted on behalf of the petitioners that, admittedly
the respondent schools are governed by the DSE and Section 10 of the said
Act applies with all force. Paucity of funds cannot be a ground for
permitting the schools not to pay the salary as well as the emoluments to its
employees. The petitioner in this regard has placed reliance upon the
judgments passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of
Kuttamparampath Sudha Nair (Supra) and Shikha Sharma v. Guru
Harkrishan Public School, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5011 .
64. It has been further argued on behalf of the petitioners that the
respondent schools have failed to comply with the provisions of Section 10
of DSE despite them being legally bound to implement the
th
recommendations of 7 CPC, at par with the counter parts serving in other
schools run by the appropriate authority. The impugned action of the
respondent schools in not paying the petitioners‘ pay, allowances, leave
encashment, gratuity and other benefits in terms of the said pay commission
in the proper pay-scale pertaining to their posts at par with the counterpart
employee of the corresponding posts of the schools of the appropriate
authority. Furthermore, in not paying the petitioner the arrears of wages and
benefits is illegal, unjustified, and unconstitutional, it violates Article 14 and
21 of the Constitution of India and Section 10 of the Delhi School Education
Act, 1973.
65. It has been submitted during the course of the arguments that the
petitioners have been deprived of their salary which they are duly entitled to
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 68 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

receive from the respective dates of their initial appointments. Consequently,
the petitioners are also entitled to receive appropriate interest upon the
arrears due from the school.
66. It has been also submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the arrears
pertaining to the salaries, retirement/terminal benefits and other arrears are
being denied to them on the premise that the concerned respondent schools
are under a financial constraints and do not have sufficient funds to pay the
arrears as per the revised pay scale. The petitioners whilst opposing the said
contention advanced by the respondent schools have submitted that the same
is legally unsubstantial. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments passed
in the matters in Shikha Sharma (Supra) and Kuttamparampath Sudha
Nair (Supra) .
67. Further, with regard to the issue of minority unaided schools, it has
been submitted on behalf the petitioners that the respondent schools have
th
been refusing to refix and pay the salary and allowance in terms of 7 CPC
on two grounds, i.e., firstly , the respondent no. 1, school is in a financial
crunch and due to the said paucity of funds it is unable to make the said
payment and secondly , the respondent no.1, school is an unaided minority
institute and therefore, not bound to pay the salaries or other dues in terms of
th
7 CPC as they do not come under the ambit of Section 10 of DSE.
68. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the Hon‘ble
Supreme Court as well as this Court in varied cases have already dealt with
these issues and it would be safe to assert that both the above issues. i.e.,
with respect to the paucity of funds of a school as well as with respect to the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 69 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

schools being an unaided minority institute is no more res integra . It has
also been submitted that a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment of
Omita Mago v. Ahlcon Public School, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 5020 , which
has been upheld by the Division bench of this Court in Ahlcon Public
School v. Omita Mago, 2023 SCC On Line Del 368 has squarely covers
both the mentioned issues and has held that paucity of funds or financial
crunch of the school cannot be a ground for non-payment of the benefits of
th
7 CPC to the petitioner therein. The Court also upheld that the pay and
allowances of the employees of unaided minority schools cannot be less than
those of the employees of the government run schools and therefore, the
employees of the unaided private school, be it unaided minority schools, are
entitled to the benefits as is being given to the employees of the government
run schools.
69. It has been further contended by the petitioners that the arguments
with regard to the delay and laches in raising their claims cannot be
sustained before this Court. In order to strengthen the said submissions,
reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench
of this Court in W.P (C) No. 6841/2022 titled Mukesh Kumar Verma Vs.
Lions Public School & Ors . It has been submitted that the Coordinate
Bench of this Court while placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the
Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the matter of Keraleeya Samajan (Supra) , held
that limiting the claim of arrears to three years prior to filing the writ petition
is untenable.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 70 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

70. The respondents whilst vehemently opposing to the claims of the
petitioners have submitted that the claim raised by the petitioners are barred
by delay and laches. It has been submitted that the revised pay scale came in
the year 2016, and since the writ petitions in the instant batch of petitions
were filed beyond the period of 3 years, the same are barred by the law of
limitation. Further, few of the petitioners are also claiming for payment of
their arrears such as salaries, retirement/terminal dues, DA, TA, MA, etc.,
th th
with respect to the recommendations of 6 CPC and 7 CPC, and the said
claims are being preferred after the expiry of more than 5 to 10 years which
is a far-fetched claim considering the unreasonable delay in seeking
redressal.
71. It has been submitted to the effect that that the principles of delay and
laches would certainly apply to the claims in the instant petitions. The
petitioners have been nothing but negligent and there has been no substantial
reasoning placed on record on their behalf that could explain the delay in
filing the instant batch of writ petitions.
72. It has been submitted that the casual approach of the petitioners as
well as their lack of action and negligence in pursuing the case altogether is
evident and apparent on the face of the record. As per the settled principles
of law, the Court can only condone a delay if there is a sufficient cause
behind such delay. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the
judgment passed in the matter of Mamata Mohanty (Supra). The Hon‘ble
Supreme Court in the said judgment has held that a petition should not be
considered ignoring the delay and laches, in case the petitioner approaches
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 71 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

the Court after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar
case as the same cannot furnish as a proper explanation for delay and laches.
A litigant cannot wake up from deep slumber and claim impetus from the
judgment in the cases where some diligent person had approached the Court
within a reasonable time.
73. The respondent has also relied upon the judgment passed by the
Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chennai Metropolitan Water
Supply & Sewerage Board (Supra) , wherein, it was held that it is the duty
of the Court to scrutinize whether the delay is to be ignored without any
justification.
74. The respondent school in its rival submissions has also stated that the
fee is the only source of revenue for the schools and a compatible fee
structure conducive to meeting the remuneration and the benefits accrued
from service to the staff, with infrastructural facilities, with all modern
learning tools and provisions for future growth is the only requisite.
75. It has been admitted during the course of the arguments, that even
though the respondent schools are bound by the provisions of Section 10 of
the DSE and the finances of the respondent schools do not allow the
th
implementation of the 7 CPC and the sole reason for the same is that the
DoE has not taken any decision on the proposal for fee hike.
76. In this context, the attention of this Court is drawn to the fee structure
of the schools. It is argued that the main source of income is through tuition
fee however, the school is not permitted to increase the tuition fee therefore,
there is a paucity of funds with the schools. Further, the schools admit the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 72 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

students under the Economic Weaker Section category who get fee
concession therefore; the school is undergoing a financial crisis. It has also
been submitted that the Shailja Committee was formed to discuss and look
into the aspects of amendments necessary for the proper functioning of the
schools and for justified implementation of the Delhi Government policies,
and in this regard the said committee had suggested for the revision of the
school fee, but no effective action has been taken place till date. Learned
counsel further submits that the situation has worsened on account of the
Covid-19 pandemic and at present, the schools are not in a position to bear
th
the burden of disbursing the benefits of 7 CPC.
77. Some of the respondent schools have raised the plea that salaries and
other arrears are due qua some of the petitioners because it was found at a
later stage that their initial appointments are either illegal or invalid, or
pursuant to some disciplinary proceedings various petitioners were
terminated. Therefore, such petitioners cannot be paid as per the
th
recommendations of 7 CPC.
78. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the DoE supports the case of
the petitioners and submitted that it is the statutory obligation of the schools
to fix the salaries and allowances of the petitioners in consonance with the
th th
recommendations of 6 and 7 CPC.
th
79. It is further submitted that the DoE, vide order dated 19 August
2016, in exercise of its powers conferred under Sections 17 (3), 24 (3), and
18 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, read with Rules 50, 177, and
180 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 adopted the Central Civil
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 73 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

th
Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, under which benefits of 7 CPC are
paid to the government employees. Directions were accordingly issued,
th th
whereby, vide order/notification dated 25 August 2017, 17 October 2017,
th
and 9 October 2019, the respondent schools were directed to implement the
th
7 CPC failing which necessary action shall be taken as per the provisions of
DSE and DSER against the defaulting Schools.
80. During the course of argument, on merits, the stand of the DoE is that
the schools are bound to comply with the provisions of Section 10 (1) of
DSE and to pay the salaries to its employees at par with those paid to the
employees of schools run by the government or aided by the government
and failure to do so, makes it liable for cancellation of its recognition under
Section 4 of DSE and taking over of the management under Section 20 of
DSE. It is also stated that financial crisis cannot be a ground to escape the
liability arising from the mandate of Section 10 (1) of DSE.
81. Reliance on behalf of the respondent DoE has been placed upon the
judgments Sadhna Payal v. Director of Education, 2010 SCC OnLine Del
80 , Kuttamparampath Sudha (Supra) . It has been stated on behalf of the
DoE that in the said judgments, the Courts have a categorical finding that
paucity of funds or financial crunch of an employer cannot be an answer to
non-compliance of a statutory mandate.
82. The respondent DoE, in view of the aforesaid submissions has
submitted before this Court that in light of the judgments passed in the
matters of Shikha Sharma (Supra) , Frank Anthony Public School
Employees Association (Supra) ; Unichovi vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1962
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 74 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

SC 12 , Hydro (Engineers) Private Ltd vs. Workmen 1969 (1) SCR 156 and
Air Freight Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka, 1996 (6) SCC 547 , there is a clear
mandate to follow Section 10 (1) of DSE by the private unaided schools and
the unaided minority schools having approval under the statutory provisions.
83. The DoE‘s final submission so far as revision of the fee is concerned,
there is a clear mandate and due procedure required to be followed by the
respondent schools from time to time, which shall in no way be an
impediment in implementation of mandate of Section 10 (1) of DSE and
th th
consequently 6 and 7 CPC and to pay the arrears due.
84. Before adjudication of the petitions on merits. This Court deems it fit
to state the objective behind the implementation of the Pay Commission.
Concept of Pay Commission
85. The Constitution of India establishes a framework that embodies the
principles of social welfare and justice. The Preamble of the Constitution of
India enunciates about the nation as a "sovereign, socialist, secular, and
democratic republic," underscoring its socialist commitment, which
encompasses the pursuit of social justice and welfare. Furthermore, the
Directive Principles of State Policy, as enshrined in Part IV of the
Constitution of India, set forth guidelines for the legislature to be followed in
shaping policies and legislation. These principles emphasize the State's
responsibility to promote the welfare of the people, secure a just and
equitable distribution of resources, and protect the rights of marginalized and
disadvantaged groups. While they are not enforceable by the Courts, they
provide a moral and ethical imperative for the government to work towards
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 75 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

the realization of social welfare objectives. Consequently, the Constitution
reflects a legal and constitutional framework that aspires to establish a
society founded on the principles of social welfare and economic well-being
for all its citizens.
86. Article 38 of the Constitution of India outlines a significant Directive
Principle of State Policy. In essence, it emphasizes that the State should
make every effort to ensure the well-being of its citizens by establishing a
social order characterized by justice in its various dimensions: social,
economic, and political. The term "justice" here encompasses the idea of
fairness and equality, and the Constitution of India calls for this sense of
justice to be embedded in all aspects of the nation's institutions and life. The
Constitution of India includes justice in all three aspects i.e., social justice,
economic justice and political justice. Social justice refers to the equitable
treatment and opportunities for all members of society, irrespective of their
background or circumstances. Economic justice aims to reduce disparities in
wealth and income, ensuring that the benefits of economic progress are
shared by all. Political justice emphasizes a fair and inclusive political
system where all the citizens have a voice and can participate in the
decision-making processes of the country.
87. Article 43 of the Constitution outlines the State's commitment to
improve the welfare and well-being of workers, both in agricultural and
industrial sectors, and promote economic activities in rural areas,
particularly through cottage industries. The State is obligated to work
towards ensuring that all workers, regardless of whether they are engaged in
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 76 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

agriculture, industry, or other occupations, receive a "living wage." i.e., a
wage that is sufficient to cover the basic needs of a worker and their family,
ensuring a decent standard of living. Hence, the Article 43 entitles the
people of the nation to wage that not only covers their basic needs but also
includes in its ambit the other needs of the people.
88. The Pay Commission has been constituted with the aim of enforcing
the concept of India being a Welfare State and with aim of promoting justice
amongst the various people in all the spheres i.e., economically, socially and
politically. It is a body under the Department of Expenditure (Ministry of
Finance) which assess and recommends the changes to the salary structure of
the employees of the public sector. They are constituted for a period of 10
years and the first pay commission was constituted in the year 1946.
89. The aim of the pay commissions has been enunciated by the Hon‘ble
Supreme Court in the judgment of Maharashtra State Financial Corpn. Ex
- Employees Ass. v. State of Maharashtra , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 100 , and
the relevant paragraphs of the same are as follows:
“ 29. That on whether, and what should be the extent of pay
revision, are undoubtedly matters falling within the domain of
executive policy making. At the same time, a larger public
interest is involved, impelling revision of pay of public officials
and employees. Sound public policy considerations appear to
have weighed with the Union and state governments, and other
public employers, which have carried out pay revision
exercises, periodically (usually once a decade, for the past 50
years or so). The rationale for such periodic pay revisions is to
ensure that the salaries and emoluments that
public employees enjoy, should keep pace with the increased
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 77 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

cost of living and the general inflationary trends, and ensure it
does not adversely impact employees. Pay revisions also
subserve other objectives, such as enthusing a renewed sense of
commitment and loyalty towards public employment. Another
important public interest consideration, is that such revisions
are meant to deter public servants from the lure of
gratification; of supplementing their income by accepting
money or other inducements for discharging their functions.
10
30. Article 43 of the Constitution obliges the state to ensure
that all workers, industrial or otherwise, are provided with a
living wage and assured of a decent standard of living. In this
context, the need for providing a mechanism to neutralize price
increase, through dearness allowance has been emphasized, in
past decisions of this court. In Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. B.N.
11
Dongre , the court explained that if pay packets are “frozen”,
the purchasing power of the wage would shrink, and there
would be a fall in real wages, which needs to be neutralized.
The court also noted neutralization of wages, through dearness
allowance is on a “sliding scale” with those at the lowest wage
bracket, getting full neutralization and those in the highest
rungs being given the least of such allowance:
“Workers are therefore concerned with the purchasing
power of the pay-packet they receive for their toil. If the
rise in the pay-packet does not keep pace with the rise in
prices of essentials the purchasing power of the pay-
packet falls reducing the real wages leaving the workers
and their families worse off. Therefore, if on account of
inflation prices rise while the pay-packet remains frozen,
real wages will fall sharply. This is what happens in
periods of inflation. In order to prevent such a fall in real
wages different methods are adopted to provide for the
rise in prices. In the cost-of-living sliding scale systems
the basic wages are automatically adjusted to price
changes shown by the cost-of-living index. In this way the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 78 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

purchasing power of workers' wages is maintained to the
extent possible and necessary. However, leap-frogging
must be avoided. This Court in Clerks & Depot Cashiers
of Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd. v. Calcutta Tramways Co.
Ltd. [AIR 1957 SC 78], held that while awarding dearness
allowance cent per cent neutralisation of the price of cost
of living should be avoided to check inflationary trends.
That is why in Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Workmen [AIR
1963 SC 1332] Das Gupta, J. observed that the whole
purpose of granting dearness allowance to workmen being
to neutralise the portion of the increase in the cost of
living, it should ordinarily be on a sliding scale and
provide for an increase when the cost-of-living increases
and a decrease when it falls. The same principle was
reiterated in Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works
Ltd. v. Workmen [AIR 1969 SC 360] and Shri Chalthan
Vibhag Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandli Ltd. v. G.S. Barot,
Member, Industrial Court, Gujarat [(1979) 4 SCC 622]
and it was emphasised that normally full neutralisation is
not given except to the lowest class of employees and that
too on a sliding scale.”
31. Therefore, the state and public employers have an
obligation to address - as a measure of public interest, the ill-
effects of rise in the cost of living, on account of price rise,
which results in fall in real wages. This obligation should be
discharged on a periodic basis. Yet, there cannot be any
straitjacket formula as to when such pay revisions are to be
made and to what extent revisions should take place. As a
general practice, the Union and state governments have been
undertaking such exercises each decade. ‖
90. The concept of pay commission has been further reiterated by the
th
Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 16 September 2022,
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 79 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

passed in Vidya Bharti School v. Directorate of Educations & Ors. , LPA
no. 541/2018 , wherein, the Division Bench held as follows:
― 6…….Pay revision in terms of the Pay Commission
Recommendations is a matter of public policy, with objective of
ensuring that with the passage of time the purchasing power of
the government employee is not denuded by inflation and other
related factors. It can hardly be anyone‟s case and will be
against public policy that the remuneration of teachers and
employees of a school be, for all times, below the standards
fixed by the government. The after-effects of such monetary
relinquishment on the employees, their families and their
financial planning would be dire. Nobody would ordinarily
volunteer for such financial deprivation and yet be expected to
discharge their duties as teachers with the same devotion and
dedication as before the pay revision. The individual
remuneration and relinquishment of rights by each teacher, for
all times, is not evidenced. ‖
91. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court has extensively dealt with the aim of
implementation of the Pay Commissions in the aforesaid judgment. It was
held that the pay commission is established for the purpose of revision of the
pay taking into account the inflationary trends and the increase in cost of
living over a period of time.
92. The Court delved into the aspect if the pay package is frozen at a
specific amount, then the same will lead to shrinkage of the real wages of the
workers. As due to inflation, the cost of living rises, whereas the wages
remains same which negatively affects the spending capacity of the workers
and as a result lowers his standard of living. Moreover, it affects not only on
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 80 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

the worker but also the well- being of the worker‘s family who is dependent
on him.

93. Moreover, the Court emphasised on the concept of dearness
allowances provided to the workers which can neutralise the effect of the
rising costs of living and stand guard on against any deterioration in the
standard of living of the worker. The Courts therefore, held that the State
shall ensure that the workers are being provided with the requisite dearness
allowance.
94. The Hon‘ble Court further held that pay revisions also promote a
loyalty and commitment amongst the employees of any organisation. As the
public servants are satisfied from their earning and therefore, do not seek
any other means of employment to supplement their salaries for the purpose
of affording a decent standard of living. Furthermore, such pay revisions
ensures that the State is discharging its obligation to provide decent amount
of wages as well as a decent standard of living, as enshrined in Article 43 of
the Constitution.
95. Lastly, the Courts emphasised on the needs of the Pay Commissions
to revise the salaries as well as other allowances on periodic basis as the
Executive deems it fit.
ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF THE PAY COMMISSION
96. The pay commission incorporates the three essential ingredients
which are inclusiveness, comprehensibility and adequacy . The three
requirements have been enunciated in detail as follows:
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 81 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

 Inclusiveness – Pay Commission shall ensure that there is
inclusiveness which implies that the broad patterns of pay scales
adopted for the civil services will be uniformly applied everywhere,
especially in areas where some autonomy has been provided. Hence,
there should be uniformity of implementation of the pay commission
across various sectors.
 Comprehensibility – The Pay Scale must provide a structure of the
total remuneration payable to the employees of the public sector
which can be easily comprehended. The various allowances along
with the remuneration and any ancillary allowances should not make
the pay scale incomprehensible. This would ensure that the employees
have the prior knowledge and understanding, regarding the total
remuneration and various allowances they will receive at a certain
post.
 Adequacy – The principle pertaining to adequacy has to be examined
in two parts. Firstly, the employee who is being appointed at certain
position has the requisite qualifications as per the duties and
responsibilities of the said position. Secondly, there should be an
adequate amount of salary fixed in a manner that various needs of the
person are getting fulfilled from his wages.


Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 82 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

AIM OF SEVENTH PAY COMMISSION
th
97. The latest Pay Commission i.e., 7 Pay Commission was set up in the
year 2014 and the recommendations of the pay commission came into effect
in the year 2016.
th
98. The salient features of the 7 Pay Commission are to examine and
review the existing pay structure and to recommend changes in the pay,
allowances and other facilities as are desirable and feasible for civil
employees as well as for the Defence Forces, having due regard to the
historical and traditional parities.
99. It aims at promoting the equality in various spheres amongst people
and ensures that the public interest is taken care of. Furthermore, it aims at
balancing the interest of the various stakeholders and therefore, ensures that
apart from the worker, the interest of the organisation and the interest of
State has been taken into consideration. Hence, it ensures that the
Government has the requisite funds to provide the workers with pay as
revised by it otherwise; the revised pay will just be a false promise to the
workers on paper which could not be implemented due to paucity of funds.
100. The Pay Commission has ensured that the pay scale should be linked
with the need to attract the most suitable talented candidate to the
government service and promote efficiency, accountability and
responsibility in the work culture.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 83 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

101. Since, this Court has deliberated upon the concept of pay commission
and its various factors that ultimately explain its importance; therefore, it is
now apposite to deal with the issues framed hereinabove.
ISSUES FOR ADJUDICATION
102. The relevant submissions and issues have been addressed herein
above. At this juncture, it is imperative to frame the following issues for
adjudication of the instant batch of petitions and the same are as follows:
A) Whether paucity of funds can be a ground for non-
th th
implementation of 6 and 7 CPC by any recognized
school?
B) Whether it is mandatory for the private unaided school to
th th
implement the recommendations of 6 and 7 CPC?
C) Whether it is mandatory for the private unaided minority
th th
School to implement the recommendations of 6 and 7
CPC?
D) Whether the Writ Petitions are hit by delay and laches and
claim can be restricted to 3 years only?

103. Now adverting to the adjudication of the issues enumerated
hereinabove.
A) Whether paucity of funds can be a ground for non-
th th
implementation of 6 and 7 CPC by any recognized school?
104. During the course of the argument the respondent schools have duly
accepted the fact that the petitioners are entitled to the salary and
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 84 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

emoluments as per the recommendations of the pay commission. However,
the schools does not have the requisite funds to pay the petitioners as per the
recommendations of the pay commissions.
105. It was also pointed out by the schools that the proposal for
enhancement of the fees was sent by the Schools to the DoE and the school‘s
proposal has been denied by DOE.
106. The respondent schools have raised ground before this Court that
according to Section 17 and 18 of the DSE, read with the Rule 177 of the
DSER, that until the schools were permitted to hike their fees, the issue of
payment of revised salary to the petitioners does not arise.
107. Therefore, the schools have raised a ground that there is a direct nexus
between the fees hike not being permitted by the DoE to the Schools and the
School not being in a position to revise the pay of petitioners as per the
recommendations of the Pay Commission.
108. Before delving into the merits of the case, it is pertinent for this Court
to reiterate the settled position of law regarding the question of whether the
th
issue of paucity of funds can be a ground for non-implementation of 6 and
th
7 Pay Commission.
109. In the judgment passed by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corpn. v. G.S. Uppal, (2008) 7
SCC 375 , the Hon‘ble Court has dealt with the issue of a corporation
running under losses and was unable to bear the financial burden on account
of revision of pay scales. Whilst adjudicating upon the said case, the
Hon‘ble Supreme Court rejected the contention qua the paucity of funds and
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 85 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

held that the employees have a vested right of being entitled to revision of
pay. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced as under:

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 86 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

the fact that a corporation is running into losses, the same does not render
the employee of the said corporation being denied revision of pay as
sanctioned to them. Furthermore, the Hon‘ble Court held that there should
be no discrimination between the employees working in the corporation to
that of the Government employees.
111. The Court further held that an employee who has been appointed at a
sanctioned post irrespective of the said employee working in a government
organization or public corporation, the employee is entitled to be paid the
salary along with the allowances on the said sanctioned post and nothing less
than that.
112. The principle pertaining to the rights of the employees being entitled
to revision in pay scale as per the recommendations of prescribed pay scale
irrespective of the fact that there is no increase in the school fees has been
dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in Rukmani Devi Jaipuria
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 87 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Public School v. Sadhna Payal, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 6535 , wherein the
Court observed as follows:

in the matter of Deepika Jain v. Rukmini Devi Public School, 2013 SCC
OnLine Del 3801 , has held that paucity of funds cannot be taken as a
ground to not pay the salary and emoluments as per the pay commission
recommendation. The Court also dealt with the issue pertaining to the nexus
between the hike of fee and paucity of funds and the same being a requisite
for implementation of recommendations of pay commission. The relevant
paragraph is reproduced below:
― 3. I have held in many cases, including the case of Meenu
Thakur v. Somer Ville School W.P. (C) 8748/2010 decided on
13.2.2013 that paucity of funds is not a ground to not pay
amounts as per the 6th Pay Commission Report and the order
of the Director of Education dated 11.2.2009. A Division Bench
of this Court in LPA 286/2010 titled
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 88 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

as Rukmani Devi Jaipuria Public School v. Sadhna
Payal decided on 11.5.2012 has also held that paucity of funds
is not a ground not to make payments as per the 6th Pay
Commission Report.

4. Counsel for respondent no.1-school seeks to draw attention
of this Court to paras 7,8 etc of the order of the Director of
Education dated 11.2.2009 and argues that unless there is a fee
hike and parents deposit the higher tuition fees, there is no
liability of the school to make payment in terms of the order of
the Director of Education dated 11.2.2009.

5. I am afraid I cannot agree with the argument because paras
1 to 3 of the circular dated 11.2.2009 make it clear that a fee
hike is not mandatory and schools have to explore payment
from the existing funds and the existing reserves to meet any
shortfall in payment of salaries and allowances etc as a
consequence of increase in the salaries and allowances of
employees. It is further made clear in para 3 of the circular that
fee hike. ‖

114. This Court observed in the aforesaid judgment that the employees of
the school are entitled to pay and emoluments as per the Pay Commission
recommendations and the school was directed to make arrangement from its
existing reserves for the same.
115. In view of the aforesaid precedents, the aspect of financial
wherewithal cannot be taken into account to exempt the school from
implementation of the recommendation of the Pay Commission. The
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 89 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

employees of the school have a vested right of being paid the salary and
emoluments as per the recommendations of the Pay Commission.

116. In the instant petition, the respondent DoE issued notification dated
th
17 October 2017, whereby, all the private recognized schools were directed
to implement the recommendations of the Pay Commission. Hence, the said
recommendations are binding on the schools as per the notification
irrespective it being run by the appropriate authority or any private body.
Moreover, the recommendations of the Pay Commission have to be
retrospectively implemented from the date of the said recommendations.
117. As discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, the schools does not have
the capacity to pay the staff of their schools as per the recommendations of
the Pay Commission due to the reason that they have not been able to hike
the fees of the students. Therefore, they do not have the requisite finances to
pay the staff as per the recommendations of the Pay Commission.
118. The issue pertaining to whether denial of permission for hiking the
school fees can be a ground for non- implementation of the Pay Commission
has been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment of
Greenfields Public School v. Anchla, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5177 , and it
was held as follows:
― 29. It is true that the aforesaid statutory provisions of law
make it mandatory for a school to file with the Directorate of
Education, a full statement of fee to be levied during the
ensuing Academic Session, and except with the approval of the
Director, the school cannot charge fee in excess of the fee as
stipulated by the Education Department. However, the said
provision does not benefit the case of the Appellant School. The
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 90 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

issue regarding applicability of Section 17(3) has been dealt in
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Ahlcon Public School (supra), wherein a similar plea was
raised and the Division Bench directed the
Employer School therein to pay salaries of its employees as per
the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission. Therefore,
the aforesaid plea raised by the Appellant School is of no
consequence.

30. Learned Counsel for the Appellant School has relied upon a
judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Godawat Pan Masala Products I.P. Ltd. v. Union of
India, (2004) 7 SCC 68. The Appellant relies on the said
judgment to contend that the Act, 1973 should be read
harmoniously and Sections 10 & 17 of the Act, 1973 should be
read together in a harmonious manner.

31. This Court has carefully gone through the said judgment
delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is of the view that
the school in question cannot escape from its liability of paying
higher pay scale to the Respondents herein by taking a plea that
there is a correlation between Section 10 and 17 of the Act,
1973. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no direct
linkage, correlation and inter-dependence in respect of
payment of salary and right to revise its fee, especially in light
of the fact that the School is at present paying salary to its
th
current employees as per the recommendations of the 7 Pay
Commission, but not to the Respondents herein as they have
superannuated, and therefore, the question of setting aside the
Impugned Judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge does
not arise. ‖

119. In the aforementioned paragraph, it is evident that the Division Bench
of this Court observed that there is no direct nexus between the payment of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 91 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

salary in accordance with pay commission recommendations and the right to
revise school fee by the schools. The Court further held that the schools
cannot shun their liability of implementation of Pay Commission
recommendations by merely taking the ground of need for hiking the school
fees. Hence, the schools are duty- bound to implement the recommendations
of the Pay Commission and the staff of the school has a vested legal right of
being paid in accordance with the same.
120. Now adverting to the adjudication of the issue in the batch matter.
121. This Court is of the opinion that in case a school is running into losses
or does not have the financial capacity to pay its employees, the same would
not preclude its liability for paying its employees their salary and other
benefits in accordance with the recommendations of the Pay Commission.
122. Moreover, if the schools are granted waiver from implementation of
the recommendations of the pay commission, then the same would result in
the school‘s employee salary be given as per the whims and fancies of the
school. They may also force the staff to work at lesser pay than the pay as
stipulated by Section 10 of DSE which states that the salary as well as the
other allowances of the employees of recognized school should not be less
than that of the employees of the corresponding status in schools run by the
appropriate authority.
123. It is pertinent to point out that any employee working with an
organization has the reasonable expectation of being paid salary decently so
that he is able to afford a decent standard of living from the said income. In
case, the employee is not paid adequately, the same may render the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 92 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

employee unmotivated to work and the employee may not give his best in
the organization. Moreover, such events might render the employee looking
for other suitable jobs to supplement his/ her income.
124. Such events are very undesirable keeping in mind the future of the
children of the nation as the same could lead to a poor quality of education
being provided to them. The Students of the Schools are the future of this
nation and there should be no compromise in educating the future generation
125. The State has duty to consider not merely the welfare or financial
condition of the organization but it has to also ensure that the welfare of the
employees of the said organization is also taken care of. It should ensure that
they are not exploited by the organization by way of coercing or forcing
them to work at a pay scale which is inadequate keeping in view the
inflationary trends and the prevalent general standard of living in the nation.
126. In the instant batch of petition, this Court specifically observes that if
the staff of the school being paid less is against the objectives of the pay
commission which ensures that the employees of the schools shall be paid a
decent amount of salary as well as the employees shall be able to afford a
decent standard of living.
127. According to Constitution, India being a welfare State shall ensure the
well- being of the subjects of the State. Moreover, as per Article 43 the State
should ensure that the employees of the State are being paid enough to
afford a good standard of living and paying inadequate salary is a violation
of the said Article.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 93 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

128. Moreover, the schools have to comply with Section 10 of the DSE,
and ensure that the employees of the schools shall be paid at par with the
aided school irrespective of the fact that the schools do not possess the
requisite funds.
129. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the paucity of funds cannot be
th
ground for denial of arrears of salaries and emoluments as per the 7 Pay
Commission. This Court is of the view that the schools have no other
alternative but to pay their staff the arrears of salaries and emoluments as
th
fixed by the 7 Pay Commission and no school can seek waiver of
implementation of Pay Commission by citing any reason whatsoever.
130. Accordingly, issue ‗A‘ is decided by this Court in favor of the
petitioners whereby the Schools are directed to ensure that they pay the staff
as per the recommendations of the Pay Commission and for the same they
may arrange finances either from the reserves or any other way of funding.
They shall ensure that the staff of the school are not paid inadequately.
B) Whether it is mandatory for the private unaided school to
th th
implement the recommendations of 6 and 7 CPC?
131. It is a contention raised by the learned counsel on behalf of the
respondent- unaided recognized school that private unaided schools are not
bound by the recommendations of the Pay Commission. It was further
contended by them that the unaided recognized schools need not pay the
same salary to their staff as is payable to the employee of the aided schools.
132. It is further contended by that the unaided schools are not bound by
Section 10 of the DSE and have the autonomy to fix the salary and
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 94 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

emoluments to their employees in accordance with the funds available with
the school.

133. Before delving into the case on merits, it is pertinent to discuss
whether the employees of the private unaided school are entitled to the same
salary and emoluments which are payable to the employee of the school
owned by the appropriate authority
134. It is necessary to discuss Section 10 of DSE which governs the aspect
of salaries and allowances of every school recognized by the DoE. Section
10 of the DSE is reproduced as follows:
― 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 schools run by the appropriate
authority : Provided that where the scales of 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 of the employees of the
corresponding status in schools run by the appropriate
authority : Provided further that the failure to comply with such
direction shall be deemed to be non-compliance with the
conditions for continuing recognition of an existing school and
the provisions of section 4 shall apply accordingly.

(2) The managing committee of every aided school shall
deposit, every month, its share towards pay and allowances,
medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and other
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 95 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

prescribed benefits with the Administrator and the
Administrator shall disburse, or cause to be disbursed, within
the first week of every month, the salaries and allowances to the
employees of the aided schools. ‖

135. Under the Section 10 of DSE vests powers with the ―appropriate
authority‖ to direct that management of the school to disburse the pay and
other benefits at par with the school under its management. The DSE has
also defined the term ―appropriate authority‖ under Section 2(e) of DSE as
follows:
“e) "appropriate authority" means :-
i. in the case of a school recognised or to be recognised by an
authority designated or sponsored by the Central Government,
that authority;
ii. in the case of a school recognised or to be recognised by the
Delhi Administration, the Administrator or any other officer
authorised by.him in this behalf;
iii. in the case: of a school recognised or to be recognised
Municipal Corporation of Delhi, that Corporation;
iv. in the case of any other school, the Administrator or any
other officer authorized by him in this behalf;”

136. As per Section 10 of DSE, the legislature aimed at ensuring that the
pay and allowances as well as other prescribed benefits of the employees of
any recognized school must not be less than the employees of same status in
the schools which are owned/ operated by the Appropriate Authority.
137. It was the intent of the legislature that the students studying in any
schools not owned/ operated by the Appropriate Authority must not bereft of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 96 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

a quality education on the ground that the employees of the schools are
being paid inadequately

138. The aforesaid section aimed at providing the requisite infrastructure
in terms of human resources to the students of the unaided recognised
school. It aimed at ensuring that competent staff gets the same salary and
emoluments at the unaided school and is not demotivated to join private
schools as they might get paid lower than the salary and emoluments paid in
the aided school.
139. Hence, it aims at ensuring that there is uniformity in terms of the
competency of the staff appointed at any school.
140. The applicability of Section 10 of DSE, to unaided school has been
discussed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment of Smt.
Mamta Chaturvedi v. The Management of New Greenfield Public School
and Anr , 2013 SCC OnLine Del 3270 , and it was held as follows:
― 4. In my opinion, the writ petition is bound to be allowed for
the reasons stated hereinafter : -

(i) Though the respondent No. 1-school states that the
petitioner is only a contractual employee, however,
Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of
Management Committee of Montfort Senior Secondary
School v. Shri Vijay Kumar, (2005) 7 SCC 472 has held
that services of a teacher have a statutory flavor in
accordance with the Delhi School Education Act and
Rules, 1973 and such services can only be terminated by
following the provisions of Rules 118 to 120 of the Delhi
School Education Rules, 1973. Therefore, the contention
of the respondent No. 1-school that petitioner is a
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 97 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

contractual employee does not take the case of the
respondent No. 1 further to hold that the petitioner is not
entitled to benefits of permanent employment in terms of
Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973. Section
10(1) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 hence
entitles the petitioner to the monetary benefits claimed.

(ii) Even if the petitioner has been treated as an ad hoc or
contractual employee such employment actually can be
said to be equal to the services of a probationer. I have
recently held in the case of Hamdard Public School v.
Directorate of Education in W.P. (C) No. 8652/2011
decided on 25.7.2013 that the probation period can be
upto three years, from three years to five years for the
reasons which are justiciable in Court, and in rarest of
rare cases for six years. In the present case, employment
of the petitioner with the respondent No. 1-school is well
over six years. Petitioner will therefore get benefit of
ratio of the judgment in the case of Hamdard Public
School (supra) and she would therefore be deemed to
have been confirmed in her post w.e.f the fourth year
after her joining the services.


(iii) Contention of the respondent No. 1 that since it is an
unrecognized school and therefore provisions of Section
10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 will not apply
is an argument without substance in view of Division
Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Social Jurist,
a Civil Rights Group v. GNCT 147 (2008) DLT 729
which holds that the provisions of Delhi School
Education Act and Rules, 1973 apply even to
unrecognized schools which are run in Delhi. ‖

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 98 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

141. The principle has been reiterated by this Court in the judgment of
Nutan Gulati v. Director of Education and Ors. , 2013 SCC OnLine Del
2507 , and the following was held:
― 7. In my opinion, the argument urged on behalf
of the petitioner merits acceptance and I do not agree
with the argument urged on behalf of respondent no. 2-school
for the reason that so far as the applicability of Section 10(1) is
concerned, the same quite clearly and categorically as per its
literal interpretation gives whatever benefits are available to
employees of Government schools would also be available to
teachers/employees of unaided private schools in Delhi. Section
10(1) does not restrict benefits only to salary/monetary benefits
as the expression used in Section 10(1) is “other prescribed
benefits”. Respondent no. 2 is unaided
private school in Delhi and therefore, it is bound
by the provision of Section 10(1) to give benefits to its teachers
which are those as granted to teachers of the Government
schools. Since in Government schools as per circular of
Director of Education dated 21.1.2011 librarians are to have
all benefits applicable to teachers in teaching
category, the petitioner who is a librarian will also get all
benefits as those granted to a teacher in an unaided private
schools. The argument of the respondent no. 2 on the basis
of the expression “Administrator” as found in Section 2(e)(ii)
of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 is
misconceived because the expression “Administrator” is used
in this provision with respect to the authority which
runs/owns the school and not with respect to issuance of
circulars for being applicable to schools, and which
is the prerogative of the Director of Education/authority which
governs the school under the provisionsof the Delhi School Edu
cation Act and Rules, 1973. ‖

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 99 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

142. On perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs, it is clear that this Court by
way of aforesaid judgments has time and again reiterated the scope of
Section 10 of the DSE and held that the employees of the unaided
recognized schools are entitled to the same salary and emoluments as that of
the school operated by the appropriate authority i.e., schools receiving
grants/ aided by Central Government, Delhi Government or Municipal
Corporation of Delhi.
143. The Division Bench of this Court recently enunciated the scope of
Section 10 of the DSE in the judgment of D.A.V. College Managing
Committee, Through Its General Secretary v. Seema Anil Kapoor and
Another , 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2314 , and held as under:

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 100 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

144. Section 10 of DSE aims to grant similar service conditions to the staff
of unaided school to ensure that there is no compromise in the quality of
education being delivered to the students of the school.
145. Moreover, the legislature aims that there should be no discrimination
of salary and other emoluments which are given to an employee of the
Government-aided school and any other recognized school. It aims at
ensuring that there is no exploitation of the employees working in unaided
school.
146. Section 10 of DSE confers the employees of unaided school a legal
vested right to be entitled to salary not less than the salary paid to the
employee of the aided school at the same position.
147. Now adverting to the facts of the instant petition, the respondent
schools which are unaided recognized private school are included within the
ambit of Section 10 of the DSE. The grounds pleaded by the unaided
recognized schools that they are not governed by Section 10 of the DSE with
th
the recommendations of 7 CPC does not hold any water.
148. This Court observes that any unaided recognized school shall be
governed by the Section 10 of the DSE regarding the salaries and
emoluments of the staff of the said school and the same shall be equivalent
to person at the same position in an aided school.
149. Accordingly, issue ‗B‘ is decided.


Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 101 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

C) Whether it is mandatory for the unaided minority School to
th th
implement the recommendations of 6 and 7 CPC?

150. The unaided minority schools have been defined in Section 2 (x) of
DSE as per which the schools which are usually governed by a minority
community and does not receive any aid. The aforesaid provision has been
reproduced herein below as follows:
“unaided minority school” means a recognized minority school
which does not receive any aid.

151. The case of the respondent unaided minority schools is that the said
schools are not governed by the Section 10 of the DSE. Moreover, they have
the fundamental right which gives them autonomy to function and manage
their own affairs. Therefore, an objection was raised that the school has an
authority to determine the salaries and emoluments payable to its staff and
the same falls within the ambit of the administration of the minority unaided
educational institute.
152. To buttress their contention, the respondents has referred to the
following Articles from the Constitution of India, which have been
reproduced herein below:
― Article 26
26. Freedom to manage religious affairs - Subject to public
order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any
section thereof shall have the right
(a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and
charitable purposes;
(b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;
(c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 102 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

(d) to administer such property in accordance with law.

Article 30
30. Right of minorities to establish and administer educational
institutions-
(1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall
have the right to establish and administer educational
institutions of their choice.
(1A) In making any law providing for the compulsory
acquisition of any property of an educational institution
established and administered by a minority, referred to in
clause (1), the State shall ensure that the amount fixed by or
determined under such law for the acquisition of such property
is such as would not restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed
under that clause.
(2) The state shall not, in granting aid to educational
institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on
the ground that it is under the management of a minority,
whether based on religion or language. ‖

153. It is contended by the respondent minority unaided school that under
Article 26 and Article 30 of the Constitution of India guarantees that the
school have the right to establish and administer their own school for the
purpose of preservation of their language, religion, script or culture.
Moreover, the Constitution guarantees the minority protection to ensure that
there is preservation, and that it strengthens the integrity and unity of the
nation.
154. Furthermore, the respondent school have referred to the following
provision of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, which is as follows:
― 3. Power of Administrator to regulate education in schools.—

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 103 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

(1) The Administrator may regulate education in all the schools
in Delhi in accordance with the provisions of this Act and
the rules made thereunder.

(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 thereunder.

(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 thereunder 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. ‖

155. The respondent has further contended that as per Section 3 of DSE,
the respondent has been given right to establish and maintain the school as
well as regulate the education in that school. Moreover, the aforesaid section
is subjected to Article 30 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of the
administration of the school. Hence, the minority respondent school have the
autonomy in the administration of their school.
156. Section 10 of DSE is not applicable to the unaided minority school,
since these schools have right to administer the salary and the emoluments
payable to the staff of the school.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 104 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

157. Before adjudicating upon the question of law, this Court will first
discuss the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court and this Court
pertaining to whether unaided minority schools are bound to implement
Section 10 of DSE as well as recommendations of the Pay Commission.
158. In the judgment of Frank Anthony Public School Employees'
Association (Supra) , the Hon‘ble Supreme Court that Section 10 of the DSE
is applicable to the unaided minority Schools. The relevant paragraphs of the
judgment are reproduced as under:

"20. Thus, Sections 8(1), 8(3), 8(4) and 8(5) do not encroach
upon any right of minorities to administer their educational
institutions. Section 8(2), however, must, in view of the
authorities, be held to interfere with such right and, therefore,
inapplicable to minority institutions. Section 9 is again
innocuous since Section 14 which applies to unaided minority
schools is virtually on the same lines as Section 9. We have
already considered Section 11 while dealing with Section 8(3).
We must, therefore, hold that Section 12 which makes the
provisions of Chapter IV inapplicable to unaided minority
schools is discriminatory not only because it makes Section 10
inapplicable to minority institutions, but also because it makes
Sections 8(1), 8(3), 8(4), 8(5), 9 and 11 inapplicable to unaided
minority institutions. That the Parliament did not understand
Sections 8 to 11 as offending the fundamental right guaranteed
to the minorities under Article 30(1) is evident from the fact
that Chapter IV applies to aided minority institutions and it
cannot for a moment be suggested that surrender of the right
under Article 30(1) is the price which the aided minority
institutions have to pay to obtain aid from the Government.
21. The result of our discussion is that Section 12 of the Delhi
School Education Act which makes the provisions of Chapter IV
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 105 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

inapplicable to unaided minority institutions is discriminatory
and void except to the extent that it makes Section 8(2)
inapplicable to unaided minority institutions. We, therefore,
grant a declaration to that effect and direct the Union of India
and the Delhi Administration and its officers, to enforce the
provisions of Chapter IV [except Section 8(2)] in the manner
provided in the chapter in the case of the Frank Anthony Public
School. The management of the school is directed not to give
effect to the orders of suspension passed against the members
of the staff.
22. After the arguments of both sides were fully heard, Shri
Sushil Kumar who appeared for the institution along with Mr
Anthony submitted that according to the instructions of the
Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination, "the
staff must be paid salaries and allowances not lower than those
paid in comparable Government schools in the State in which
the school is located" and in view of this instruction it was not
necessary for us to go into the question of the applicability of
Section 10 to minority institutions. We do not attach any
significance to this last minute, desperate submission. It is not
clear whether the instruction is a condition imposed by the
Council pursuant to Section 19 of the Delhi School Education
Act. There is no way by which the staff can seek to enforce the
instruction. Nor is the instruction of any relevance since it is
not the case of the respondents that the institution is paying or
is agreeable to pay the scales of pay stipulated in the
instruction.
23. We must refer to the submissions of Mr Frank Anthony
regarding the excellence of the institution and the fear that the
institution may have to close down if they have to pay higher
scales of salary and allowances to the members of the staff. As
we said earlier the excellence of the institution is largely
dependent on the excellence of the teachers and it is no answer
to the demand of the teachers for higher salaries to say that in
view of the high reputation enjoyed by the institution for its
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 106 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

excellence, it is unnecessary to seek to apply provisions like
Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act to the Frank
Anthony Public School. On the other hand, we should think that
the very contribution made by the teachers to earn for the
institution the high reputation that it enjoys should spur the
management to adopt at least the same scales of pay as the
other institutions to which Section 10 applies. Regarding the
fear expressed by Shri Frank Anthony that the institution may
have to close down we can only hope that the management will
do nothing to the nose to spite the face, merely to "put the
teachers in their proper place". The fear expressed by the
management here has the same ring as the fear expressed
invariably by the management of every industry that disastrous
results would follow which may even lead to the closing down
of the industry if wage scales are revised."

159. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court held that Section 12 of the DSE is
discriminatory and as such bad in law. Hence, Sections 8 to 11 of the DSE
(except Section 8 (2) of the DSE) is applicable to the minority Schools.
Section 10 of the DSE, therefore, is applicable on unaided minority schools
and therefore, the said schools have to pay their staff in accordance with the
recommendations of the Pay Commissions.
160. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of
Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481 , held that the right to administer an
educational institution has to be regulated and these schools can be bound by
certain regulatory measures as prescribed by governing body to ensure the
maintenance of administrative policies. The relevant paragraphs of the
judgment are reproduced herein below:
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 107 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

“50. The right to establish and administer broadly comprises
the following rights:
(a) to admit students;
(b) to set up a reasonable fee structure;
(c) to constitute a governing body;
(d) to appoint staff (teaching and non-teaching); and
(e) to take action if there is dereliction of duty on the part of
any employees.
Xxxxx xxxxx xxxx
53. With regard to the core components of the rights under
Articles 19 and 26(a), it must be held that while the State has
the right to prescribe qualifications necessary for admission,
private unaided colleges have the right to admit students of
their choice, subject to an objective and rational procedure of
selection and the compliance with conditions, if any, requiring
admission of a small percentage of students belonging to
weaker sections of the society by granting them freeships or
scholarships, if not granted by the Government. Furthermore,
in setting up a reasonable fee structure, the element of
profiteering is not as yet accepted in Indian conditions. The fee
structure must take into consideration the need to generate
funds to be utilized for the betterment and growth of the
educational institution, the betterment of education in that
institution and to provide facilities necessary for the benefit of
the students. In any event, a private institution will have the
right to constitute its own governing body, for which
qualifications may be prescribed by the State or the university
concerned. It will, however, be objectionable if the State retains
the power to nominate specific individuals on governing bodies.
Nomination by the State, which could be on a political basis,
will be an inhibiting factor for private enterprise to embark
upon the occupation of establishing and administering
educational institutions. For the same reasons, nomination of
teachers either directly by the department or through a service
commission will be an unreasonable inroad and an
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 108 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 109 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 110 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

161. This Court has time and again reiterated that Section 10 of the DSE is
applicable on the unaided recognized schools too. The Courts aim at
ensuring that there should be a balance between the autonomy given to the
schools for the purpose of the establishment of the educational institution
and on the other hand, regulation by the authority to ensure that there is
adequate quality of education maintained in the school by making the
unaided minority schools bound by certain regulations.
162. This Court in the case of Guru Harkishan Public School v. Director
of Education, (2015) 221 DLT 448, passed a judgment on the similar lines
to the judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Frank Anthony Public
School Employees' Association (Supra) and held as follows:
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 111 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

“35. The court further held that „mere prescription of scales of
pay and other conditions of service would not jeopardise the
right of the management of minority institutions to appoint
teachers of their choice. The excellence of the instruction
provided by an institution would depend directly on the
excellence of the teaching staff, and in turn, that would depend
on the quality and the contentment of the teachers. Conditions
of service pertaining to minimum qualifications of teachers,
their salaries, allowances and other conditions of service which
ensure security, contentment and decent living standards to
teachers and which will consequently enable them to render
better service to the institution and the pupils cannot surely be
said to be violative of the fundamental right guaranteed by
Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The management of a minority
Educational institution cannot be permitted under the guise of
the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 30(1) of the
Constitution, to oppress or exploit its employees any more than
any other private employee. Oppression or exploitation of the
teaching staff of an educational institution is bound to lead,
inevitably, to discontent and deterioration of the standard of
instruction imparted in the institution affecting adversely the
object of making the institution an effective vehicle of education
for the minority community or other persons who resort to it.
The management of minority institution cannot complain of
invasion of the fundamental right to administer the institution
when it denies the members of its staff the opportunity to
achieve the very object of Article 30(1) which is to make the
institution an effective vehicle of education‟.

36. Thus, Section 8(1), 8(3), 8(4) and 8(5) were held not to
encroach upon any right of the minorities to administer their
educational institutions. However, Section 8(2) was held to be
not applicable to minority institutions.
37. The Court finally held that „Section 12 which makes the
provisions of Chapter IV inapplicable to unaided minority
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 112 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

schools is discriminatory not only because it makes Section 10
inapplicable to minority institutions, but also because it makes
Sections 8(1), 8(3), 8(4), 8(5), 9 and 11 inapplicable to unaided
minority institutions. That the Parliament did not understand
Sections 8 to 11 as offending the fundamental right guaranteed
to the minorities under Article 30(1) is evident from the fact
that Chapter IV applies to aided minority institutions and it
cannot for a moment be suggested that surrender of the right
under Article 30(1) is the price which the aided minority
institutions have to pay to obtain aid from the Government‟.

37. The Court finally held that „Section 12 which makes the
provisions of Chapter IV inapplicable to unaided minority
schools is discriminatory not only because it makes Section 10
inapplicable to minority institutions, but also because it makes
Sections 8(1), 8(3), 8(4), 8(5), 9 and 11 inapplicable to unaided
minority institutions. That the Parliament did not understand
Sections 8 to 11 as offending the fundamental right guaranteed
to the minorities under Article 30(1) is evident from the fact
that Chapter IV applies to aided minority institutions and it
cannot for a moment be suggested that surrender of the right
under Article 30(1) is the price which the aided minority
institutions.”

163. It is also imperative to refer to the judgment passed by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the matter of Shikha Sharma (Supra) , wherein this
Court has dealt and summarized the position of implementation of
recommendations of the Pay Commission by the unaided minority school
and the relevant paragraphs of the same are as follows:
― 23. The said Section contemplates that the pay and allowances
of the employees of the recognised private Schools could not be
less than that of the employees of the Government run Schools.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 113 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

xxxx xxxxx xxxx
26. So, it is clear that the pay and allowances of the employees
of unaided minority Schools cannot be less than those of the
employees of the Government run Schools. There is no dispute
th th
that the benefits of 6 and 7 CPC have been given to the
employees of the Government run Schools. If that be so, the
employees of the unaided minority Schools are also entitled to
th
get the benefits of the recommendations as made by the 6 and
th
7 CPC reports. So, this plea of Mr. Abinash Kumar Mishra is
liable to be rejected. The plea of Mr. Mishra, that till such time
the DoE grants approval to the Schools to collect the arrears of
fees, the Schools must not be directed to pay the benefits of
th
7 CPC is concerned, the same is unmerited. The employees
are entitled to equal pay and other benefits, by operation of
Section 10 of the DSE Act, in other words, by operation of law,
the said benefits are payable. The same does not pre-suppose
the approval being granted by the Director to the Schools to
claim higher fee or arrears thereof. ‖
164. The Coordinate Bench of this Court while summarizing, the issue
pertaining to application of Section 10 of DSE held that the unaided
minority schools are bound by Section 10 and shall ensure that the salary as
well as the emoluments paid to the staff of the unaided private school shall
at be par to the salary and emoluments paid to the staff of aided school at the
same position.
165. This Court has further passed the judgment on similar lines in the
matter of Kuttamparampath Sudha Nair (Supra), wherein it was held as
follows:
23. The issue again came up before the Supreme Court in Raj
Soni v. Air Officer Incharge (Administration), (1990) 3 SCC
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 114 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

261 where the Supreme Court reiterated and re-affirmed the
inflexible nature of the liability that was binding on a
recognized school under the provisions of the DSEA&R and
significant would it be to note that the Supreme Court
categorically held that recognized private schools in Delhi,
whether aided or otherwise, are governed by the provisions of
DSEA&R. Relevant para of the judgment is as under:—
“11. The recognized private schools in Delhi whether
aided or otherwise are governed by the provisions of the
Act and the Rules. The respondent-management is under a
statutory obligation to uniformly apply the provisions of
the Act and the Rules to the teachers employed in the
school. When an authority is required to act in a
particular manner under a statute it has no option but to
follow the statute. The authority cannot defy the statute on
the pretext that it is neither a State nor an “authority”
under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.”
24. In P.M. Lalitha Lekha v. Lt. Governor in W.P. (C) No.
5435/2008 decided on 02.02.2011 although the question
involved was counting of service of the Petitioner therein for
computing her pension and in that context was different on
facts, but the point of law was the same as the one arising in the
present petition. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court examined the
provisions of Section 10(1) of the DSEA&R and observed that
the first proviso to Section 10(1) clearly obliges the DOE to
direct the management of all recognized private schools to
bring all benefits, including inter-alia pensionary benefits, to
the same level as that of the employees of corresponding status
of the schools run by the Director of Education. The second
proviso enables the DOE to withdraw the recognition of the
school under Section 4 of the DSEA&R in case the management
fails to comply with the directions and serves a salutary
purpose and empowers the DOE to issue directions aimed at
fulfilling the object of Section 10(1) of the DSEA&R. It was also
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 115 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

held that the mandate of Section 10(1) is unambiguous,
regardless of whether the school receives grant-in-aid or not. It
was also held that it must be kept in mind that the Delhi School
Education Act contemplates unaided private schools also, as
they are also granted recognition and therefore the mandate of
Section 10(1) would apply to them with full rigour. Relevant
paras of the judgment are as under:—
“11. The first proviso to Section 10 of the Delhi School
Education Act, 1973 clearly obliges the Director of
Education to direct the management of all recognized
private schools to rectify any deficiency and to bring all
benefits, including, inter alia, pensionary benefits up to the
same level as those of employees of corresponding status
of the schools run by the Director of Education. The
second proviso further provides that in case the
management of the school fails to comply with such
directions, recognition of the school can be withdrawn
under the powers given in S.4 of the Delhi School
Education Act, 1973. This serves a salutary purpose and
further empowers the Director of Education to issue
appropriate directions aimed at fulfilling the object of
Section 10(1) of the Act.
12. The school has been given certain privileges, including
recognition, on condition, inter alia, that it complies with
Section 10(1). Due to the non-compliance of the conditions
by the respondent school the petitioner cannot be made to
suffer. If the respondent school does not come forward to
honor its employees' entitlement in this behalf, then, steps
need to be taken by the appropriate authority to ensure
compliance.
13. The payment of pension for the period before the
grant-inaid came into the picture has to be rendered by
the school, but post such grant, the liability shifts to the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 116 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

respondent. This is because the mandate of Section 10(1)
is unambiguous. Regardless of whether it receives grant-
in-aid or not. So long as it is a recognized private school,
pension and other benefits of its employees must be the
same as those admissible to employees of the Authority's
schools. Under the first proviso, it is the respondent's duty
to ensure that such payment is made. Under the Second
proviso the respondent can take action if those directions
are not followed. The respondents in no circumstance can
be absolved from their duty.
xxx xxx xxx
15. In this context, it must be kept in mind that the Delhi
School Education Act contemplates unaided private
schools also. Even such schools are granted recognition.
The mandate of Section 10(1) applies with full rigour to
them also.”
(emphasis supplied)
25. Recently, a Division Bench of this Court in Dhanwant Kaur
Butalia v. Guru Nank Public School in LPA 499/2013 decided
on 14.01.2016 reiterated and re-enforced that Section 10(1)
with its consequential resultant mandate that scales of pay,
allowances, medical facilities, gratuity, etc., paid to the
Government schools should be paid to employees of
corresponding status in private recognized schools, would
apply to all unaided schools. Section 10(1) is a statutory purity
and also a minimum standard which all recognized schools
have to adhere to.
26. In the appeal before the Division Bench, the Appellant was
aggrieved by an order of the learned Single Judge whereby her
claim for increase of salary, consequent to implementation of
th
6 CPC recommendation, was rejected. The Appellant invoked
provisions of Section 10(1) of DSEA&R and also relied on
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 117 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

earlier judgments of this Court wherein it was consistently
ruled that unaided schools have an obligation to ensure that
emoluments of teachers and other employees are at par with
those in the schools established and maintained by the
appropriate Government. Judgments of this Court in Gurvinder
Singh Saini v. Guru Harkishan Public School in W.P. (C)
12372/2009 decided on 02.09.2011, Deepika Jain v. Rukmini
Devi Public School in W.P.(C) 237/2013 decided on
23.09.2013 and the judgment of Division Bench in Guru
Harkishan Public School v. Gurvinder Singh Saini in LPA
58/2012 decided on 05.09.2012, were cited by the Appellant
and taken note of by the Division Bench.
27. As the issue before the Division Bench concerned benefits
th
under 6 CPC, reliance was placed on the CCS (Revised Pay)
Rules, 2008 and Office Memorandum dated 30.08.2008
referring to the said Rules. Based on this, a Circular was issued
by the Competent Authority under the DOE on 15.10.2008,
directing the managements of all private recognized (aided as
th
well as unaided) schools to implement 6 CPC
recommendations. After a conjoint reading of the circulars and
the Pay Rules, the Division Bench held as follows:—
“6. The Court also notices that the pre-existing Section 12
which had excluded the application of Section 10 and
other provisions of the Chapter, to unaided minority
schools was set aside by the Supreme Court in Frank
Anthony School Employees Association v. Union of
India (1986) 4 SCC 707 : AIR 1987 SC 311. The Supreme
Court expressly considered the impact of Section 10 and
whether it had the effect of eroding the minority character
of schools entitled to protection under Article 30 and
concluded that it did not. The said judgment has been
constantly followed and it was not overruled but was
approved in TMA Pai Foundation's case (supra). Section
10 with its consequential resultant mandate is that scales
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 118 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

of pay, allowances, medical facilities, gratuity, provident
fund “and other prescribed benefits” which employees of
“corresponding status” in schools of the appropriate
government are to be granted to employees of
all unaided schools.
7. This ipso facto ought to clinch the case in favour of the
present appellant. Section 10 is a statutory purity and also
a minimum standard which all recognized schools have to
adhere to.
xxx xxx xxx
“10. The said office memorandum of 30.08.2008 also
referred to the Central Civil Service Revised Pay Rules,
2008. The effect of all these office memoranda (dated
11.09.2008, 22.09.2008 and 15.10.2008) is that the
managements of all private recognized schools aided as
well as unaided had to implement the 6PC
Recommendations, in the manner stipulated by Section 10
of Delhi Education Act. Circular dated 15.10.2008 was
categorical in this regard. It reads as under:
“Section 10(1) of Delhi School Education Act 1973
provides that:
“The scales of pay and allowances, medical facilities,
pension, gratuity, provident fund and other prescribed
benefits of the employees of a recognized private school
shall not be less than those of the employees of the
corresponding status in school run by the appropriate
authority.”
Therefore, the Management of all private recognized,
(Aided as well as unaided) schools are directed to
implement the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations -
fixation of pay and payment of arrears in accordance with
circular no. 30-3(17)/Cood/Cir/2008 dated 22.09.2008
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 119 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

vide which it has been implemented in r/o employees of
Government Schools.
This issue with prior approval of competent Authority.”
11. A co-joint reading of all circulars would immediately
reveal that the 6PC recommendations were accepted and
the Central Government formulated the revised pay rules
with effect from 01.01.2006. The rules were published in
2008. Nevertheless, the entitlement following from it
accrued to all with effect from 01.01.2006. The only
exception was that certain types of allowances i.e. HRA,
children's education allowance, special compensatory
allowance etc. were to be paid prospectively with effect
from 01.09.2008 (refer para 3 of OM dated 30.08.2008).
In all other respects, the pay parity mandated for
government of NCT teachers was to apply to teachers and
staff members of unaided schools - minority and non-
minority schools.
xxx xxx xxx
13. In the present case, Section 10 remains on the statute
book; it was declared to be applicable to all unaided
schools including minority schools, from 1986 onwards
i.e. with the declaration of the law in Frank Anthony
School Employees Association's case (supra). There is no
dispute that the 6PC recommendations were to be
implemented from the date the Government of NCT
implemented it. Such being the case, the respondent school
in the present case could not have claimed ignorance of
application of Section 10 and stated that it was obliged to
pay arrears or implement the 6PC recommendations with
effect from the date later than that applicable in the case
of Government of NCT teachers and teaching staff in its
schools.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 120 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

14. As a consequence and in the light of the previous order
of this court in Gurvinder Singh Saini's case (supra)
and Uma Walia's case (supra) the impugned order and
judgment of learned Single Judge is hereby set aside. The
respondent is directed to disburse all the arrears of salary
and allowances payable pursuant to 6PC
recommendations - to the appellant except those expressly
denied by virtue of the Central Government's Office
Memorandum dated 30.08.2008, within six weeks from
today.”
28. Contention of learned counsel for the School that Section
10(1) does not specifically include unaided private schools may
seem attractive at the first blush, if one was to superficially look
at the provisions of the Section, where the words used are
„recognized private school‟. However, the contention cannot be
accepted in view of the various judicial pronouncements where
the provision of Section 10(1) has been interpreted to include
both aided and unaided schools. The Division Bench in
Dhanwant Kaur (supra) has clearly held that the mandate of
Section 10(1) would apply to all unaided schools as the
minimum standard that the provision ensures must be adhered
to by all recognized schools.
29. In Dev Dutt Sharma v. Managing Society National Public
School in W.P. (C) 11563/2009 decided on 02.07.2010, a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court pronounced that the mandate of
Section 10(1) is unambiguous, regardless of whether the
institution receives grant-in-aid or not. Since the Act itself
contemplates unaided private schools for recognition, mandate
will apply with full rigour to them. The Supreme Court in Frank
Anthony (supra) held that impact of Section 10(1) would not
have the effect of eroding the minority character of the Minority
Institutions, who are entitled to protection under Article 30(1)
of the Constitution of India.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 121 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

30. Additionally, it may be noted that this is also the
understanding of the DOE which is implicit in the various
Circulars issued by them from time to time in this regard. Vide
order dated 19.08.2016, DOE, in exercise of powers conferred
under Sections 17(3), 24(3) and 18 of the Delhi School
Education Act, 1973 read with Rules 50, 177 and 180 of the
Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 adopted the CCS (Revised
th
Pay) Rules, 2016, under which benefits of 7 Pay Commission
are paid to the Government employees. Directions were
accordingly issued by the DOE, vide Circular dated 17.10.2017
to all the unaided private recognized schools to extend the
th
benefits of 7 CPC to its employees in accordance with Section
10(1) at par with the Government employees. By another order
dated 09.10.2019, the DOE reiterated its directions to the
unaided schools to comply with the mandate of Section 10(1),
failing which necessary action shall be taken as per provisions
of DSEA&R against the defaulting Schools……………….
xxx xxx xxx

166. In view of the aforesaid judgments, the law with regard to unaided
minority schools is settled and the said schools fall under the ambit of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 122 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

Section 10 of DSE. Hence, they are liable to follow the recommendations of
the pay commissions and accordingly, pay the staff of their school at par
with the employees of the government aided schools.
167. Education is an invincible weapon for empowering the next
generation of the nation and the nation by of regulation authority has to
exercise certain control to ensure that there is uniform quality of education is
provided to every student of the country. The aspect of autonomy in
administration of unaided or aided school therefore, does not come into play
since the state has to ensure that there is quality education provided to the
children. Hence, the unaided minority schools are bound by certain
regulations of the appropriate authority.
168. The schools shall ensure that there is an adequate compensation paid
to the staff of the school. Since, in the school the future generations of the
country are being taught and if the teachers are not paid decently they might
not be able to perform their best in imparting knowledge to the students.
169. The payment of adequate salary to the staff of the school acts as a
motivating factor for the teachers in giving their best in teaching the
children.
170. This Court is of the view that the unaided minority schools are bound
by the Section 10 of DSE and hence, the staff of the unaided minority school
is entitled to salary and emoluments at par with the salary and emoluments
as payable to the employee at the same position of the school owned by the
competent authority.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 123 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

171. Therefore, the unaided minority schools are duty bound to pay their
employees as per the recommendations of the Pay Commissions along with
the pending arrears. The employees of the unaided minority schools have a
vested right to claim the arrears and dues in accordance with the Pay
Commission.
172. Accordingly, issue ‗C‘ is decided.
D) Whether the Writ Petitions are hit by delay and latches and claim
can be restricted to 3 years only?
173. It is the contention of the respondent schools that the dues of the
employees of the schools shall be limited to dues of 3 years prior to filing of
the petition. Since there is unexplained delay and laches in filing the petition
and hence, the petitioner cannot circumvent the provisions of Limitation Act
th th
and claim arrears of 6 and 7 CPC.
174. The respondent schools have further pleaded that it is a settled law
that even in cases of continuing actions, the benefits of the arrears have to be
limited to three years.
175. Before adverting to the adjudication of the petition on facts, this Court
deems it necessary to state the position of law whether the Writ Petitions are
hit by delay and latches and claim can be restricted to 3 years only.
176. It is a settled position of law that due to lapse on behalf of schools in
non- payment of the benefits to its employees, the same cannot be used to
the advantage of the schools by restricting dues to 3 years. The Schools are
obligated to arrears of its employees to them in this regard.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 124 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44

177. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the judgment of
Keraleeya Samajam & Anr. V Pratibha Dattatray Kulkarni (Dead)
through LRs & Ors. , Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21660-21661 of 2019
th
dated 28 June 2019, has dealt with the issue of limitation of claiming the
arrears and held that such contentions are untenable in the eyes of law and
held as follows:
― 4. Therefore the entitlement of the teacher's salaries as per the
th th
5 and 6 Pay Commission to the teaching and non-teaching
staff of the second petitioner - school is not required to gone
into and only issue which is required to be considered is
whether the arrears ought to have been restricted to three years
preceding the filing of the writ petition?
5. Having heard Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and
considering orders passed in earlier round of litigations which
ended up to this court the liability of the management to pay the
salaries to the teaching and non-teaching staff as per the
th th
4 Pay Commission and 5 Pay Commission ended in favour of
the teaching and non-teaching staff working with the
th
petitioners. Therefore as and when the 6 Pay Commission
recommendations was made applicable as such it was the duty
cast upon the petitioners' institution to pay the salary/wages to
the teaching and non-teaching staff as per the applicable pay
th
scale as per the 6 Pay Commission recommendation and for
which the staff was not required to move before the Deputy
Director (Education) again and again. Therefore, the
submissions on behalf of the petitioners that as the respondents
approached the Deputy Director (Education) subsequently and
therefore the question with respect to the limitation will come
into play and therefore the respondents shall be entitled to the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3592/2022 connected with other 50 batch matters Page 125 of 136

Digitally Signed
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:18.11.2023
17:57:44