Bindu Khanna vs Gail Demonte & Ors
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Reserved on: 24 September, 2026
th
Pronounced on: 27 October, 2026
th
Uploaded on: 27 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC013257052015
+ W.P.(C) 6514/2015, CM APPL. 11863/2015, CM APPL. 2418/2016,
CM APPL. 6962/2016, CM APPL. 7427/2016, CM APPL.
35594/2016, CM APPL. 32317/2017 & CM APPL. 42058/2017
THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE PINNACLE SCHOOL
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamal Gupta, Mrs. Tripti Gupta,
Mr. Sparsh Aggarwal and Mr.
Siddharth Arora, Advocates for
School.
versus
THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Bindu Khanna, Respondent No. 2
in person.
# CNR No. DLHC010252462016
+ CONT.CAS(C) 78/2016
BINDU KHANNA .....Petitioner
Through: Petitioner-in-person.
versus
GAIL DEMONTE & ORS .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Kamal Gupta, Mrs. Tripti Gupta,
Mr. Sparsh Aggarwal and Mr.
Siddharth Arora, Advocates for
School.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:40:13
W.P.(C) 6514/2015 & CONT.CAS(C) 78/2016 Page 1 of 22
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J.:
The Controversy
1. This litigation began with a grievance about unpaid salary and
allowances, but has come to turn on a more basic question: what post did Ms.
Bindu Khanna hold at different stages of her service with The Pinnacle
th
School? She joined the School on 6 January, 1994. According to her, she
entered service as a Trained Graduate Teacher [“TGT”] and was promoted as
st
a Post Graduate Teacher [“PGT”] from 1 April, 2006. The School gives a
different account. It asserts that she was appointed as an Assistant Teacher,
was placed in the TGT grade from April 2003, and was never promoted to
PGT. The answer matters because her claim for differential salary under
successive Pay Commissions depends upon the posts she held and the pay
scales applicable to them.
2. The controversy has arisen from the School’s own records which
provide differing accounts of her service. Its staff statement for 2001-02
describes Ms. Khanna as a TGT appointed in 1994, while the statement for
2006-07 places her among the PGTs. Other staff statements describe her as
an Assistant Teacher, and correspondence issued by the School records her
placement in the TGT grade from April 2003. The Director of Education
th
[“DoE”] accepted Ms. Khanna’s claim by order dated 5 May, 2015 and
directed payment of differential arrears under the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Pay
Commissions. The School challenges that order in W.P.(C) 6514/2015. The
connected CONT.CAS(C) 78/2016, filed by Ms. Khanna, concerns the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:40:13
W.P.(C) 6514/2015 & CONT.CAS(C) 78/2016 Page 2 of 22
alleged failure to comply with an earlier direction of this Court requiring
implementation of the DoE’s order. The two matters have travelled together,
but raise distinct questions: whether the DoE’s determination of Ms. Khanna’s
service status and monetary entitlement can stand, and what consequences
follow for the contempt proceedings and the amounts deposited and released
under this Court’s interim orders.
The origin of the litigation
3. The dispute concerning differential salary came before this Court in
W.P.(C) 2742/2011, filed by Ms. Khanna seeking payment of statutory salary
and allowances under Section 10(1) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973
th
[“the Act”]. On 16 September, 2013, this Court disposed of that petition after
recording that Ms. Khanna had confined her relief to monetary benefits under
the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Pay Commission recommendations. The School
did not dispute the applicability of those benefits, but maintained that the
amounts due had already been paid. Since the necessary calculations and
supporting records were not before the Court, the DoE was directed to
examine the parties’ representations and determine whether any arrears
remained payable or, if none were payable, explain how the amounts due had
been paid. A reasoned order was accordingly required to be passed.
4. Pursuant to these directions, the Additional Director of Education
th
passed an order dated 25 April, 2014, determining differential arrears of INR
16,72,262 on the basis of a comparison with the salary of a similarly placed
th
TGT. The School challenged that order in W.P.(C) 4059/2014. On 18
February, 2015, this Court, with the consent of the parties, remitted the matter
to the DoE for fresh consideration. Having examined the original
departmental file, the Court noticed that the School had produced documents
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:40:13
W.P.(C) 6514/2015 & CONT.CAS(C) 78/2016 Page 3 of 22
indicating that Ms. Khanna was appointed as an Assistant Teacher, contrary
to her claim of appointment as TGT. Without expressing any opinion on the
merits, the Court directed the DoE to examine all relevant documents on its
record, including the staff statements submitted by the School, and pass a
fresh speaking order dealing with the competing contentions.
th th
5. Following hearings on 24 March and 10 April, 2015, the DoE passed
th
the impugned order dated 5 May, 2015. Relying principally upon the
School’s staff statements for 2001-02 and 2006-07 and the appointment letter
th
dated 7 February, 2006, the DoE concluded that Ms. Khanna had been
th st
appointed as TGT from 6 January, 1994 and promoted as PGT from 1 April,
2006. It rejected the School’s explanation that the entries in the staff
statements were erroneous and directed payment of differential arrears under
the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Pay Commissions within two weeks.
Submissions of the parties
6. Mr. Kamal Gupta, appearing for the Petitioner-School, submits that the
DoE has relied selectively upon the staff statements for 2001-02 and 2006-07,
while overlooking material documents pointing to a different service position.
th
He particularly questions the interpretation of the appointment letter dated 7
February, 2006, bearing No. 753, which the DoE treated as proof of Ms.
Khanna’s appointment as TGT in January 1994. According to him, another
letter issued on the same date, bearing No. 812, expressly records her
placement in the TGT grade from April 2003. He also refers to the intervening
staff statements, salary records, correspondence and photographs reflecting
the classes taught by Ms. Khanna. Particular emphasis is placed upon her
annual appraisal reports for 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10, completed in her
own handwriting, in which she described herself as TGT. These documents,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:40:13
W.P.(C) 6514/2015 & CONT.CAS(C) 78/2016 Page 4 of 22
though placed before the DoE, received no meaningful consideration. Mr.
Gupta further relies upon an earlier inquiry report of the Directorate, which,
according to the School, records that Ms. Khanna had been paid in the TGT
st
grade with effect from 1 April, 2003.
7. Turning to the claimed promotion to PGT, Mr. Gupta submits that there
is no promotion order, recommendation of a Selection Committee or evidence
of compliance with Rule 96 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.
Completion of twelve years of service, or eligibility for financial upgradation
under the Assured Career Progression [“ACP”] Scheme, could not by itself
confer a substantive promotion. He also points out that in W.P.(C) 2742/2011,
Ms. Khanna sought arrears in the TGT grade without claiming that she had
been promoted to PGT in April 2006, although she states that the relevant
staff statement had been obtained under the Right to Information Act in May
2010. He disputes her claim that she was unaware of her promotion,
submitting that her teaching assignments and the duties she performed would
have made the change in her position apparent. Reliance is placed upon Geeta
1
Khanna v. Manager, Arvind Gupta DAV Centenary School to submit that
an entry in a staff statement cannot, without a valid appointment, confer
entitlement to the higher post.
8. Mr. Gupta further submits that the claim for arrears extending back to
1994 is seriously affected by delay and laches. The School had paid Ms.
Khanna in accordance with the applicable Pay Commission recommendations
and the grades held by her, and no further amount remained payable. He relies
upon Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak v. Bhavnagar Municipal
1
2013:DHC:1131-DB.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:40:13
W.P.(C) 6514/2015 & CONT.CAS(C) 78/2016 Page 5 of 22
2 3
Corporation and State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari
concerning stale service claims. He also disputes the DoE’s finding that the
School secured upgradation to the senior-secondary level by representing Ms.
Khanna as PGT, pointing out that the upgradation preceded the disputed staff
statement for 2006-07. According to him, the DoE’s conclusions rest upon a
misreading of documents and cannot be sustained by disregarding the
statutory requirements governing appointment and promotion.
9. In the connected contempt proceedings, Mr. Gupta submits that the
entire principal amount of INR 16,72,262 was deposited with the Registry
pursuant to subsequent judicial directions. The School cannot, therefore, be
required to make a second payment of the same amount directly to Ms.
Khanna. He disputes any continuing wilful disobedience and seeks dismissal
of the contempt petition. Consequent upon setting aside the DoE’s order, he
also seeks refund of the amount retained by the Registry and restitution of the
amount released to Ms. Khanna against an indemnity bond.
10. Ms. Khanna, who argues her case in person, places considerable
reliance on the School’s own records. In the staff statement for 2001-02, the
School described her as a TGT, recorded her recruitment through selection,
th th
and gave 6 January, 1994 and 6 January, 1995 as the dates of her joining
and confirmation. Its statement for 2006-07 places her among the PGTs, with
details of the classes and subjects she taught and a basic salary of INR 6,725.
Both statements were submitted to the Directorate well before the present
proceedings began. She questions how the School can now disown these
entries, which support her claim to the TGT and PGT pay scales.
2
(2022) 18 SCC 144.
3
(2013) 12 SCC 179.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:40:13
W.P.(C) 6514/2015 & CONT.CAS(C) 78/2016 Page 6 of 22
th
11. Ms. Khanna also relies upon the appointment letter dated 7 February,
th
2006, issued under the covering letter dated 8 February, 2006, which states
that the new appointment letter would replace the earlier one. According to
her, the reference to her appointment from January 1994, read with the TGT
pay scale of INR 5,500-9,000, establishes her original appointment in that
grade. She disputes the authenticity and effect of the undated appointment
letter relied upon by the School and the subsequent rectification
correspondence. She points to inconsistencies in the dates, designations and
pay particulars appearing in the School’s records, and alleges that certain
entries had been filled in after her signatures were obtained. She also
questioned the School’s explanation concerning missing records and the
absence of any traceable contemporaneous request for correction of the 2001-
02 staff statement.
12. Addressing the disputed PGT promotion, Ms. Khanna submits that,
upon completing twelve years of service in 2006, she became eligible for
benefits under the ACP Scheme and was promoted to PGT. She maintains that
the School never informed her of the promotion and that she learnt of it only
upon obtaining documents under the Right to Information Act in 2010. She
points to the continued description of her as TGT in correspondence and
appraisal records as consistent with her claim that no promotion had been
communicated to her. She also relies upon the teaching assignments recorded
in the 2006-07 staff statement and contends that the School benefited from its
representations concerning the qualifications and designations of its teaching
staff while seeking upgradation to the senior-secondary level.
13. On her monetary claims, Ms. Khanna submits that the School failed to
fix and revise her salary correctly under the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Pay
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:40:13
W.P.(C) 6514/2015 & CONT.CAS(C) 78/2016 Page 7 of 22
Commissions. She relies upon salary registers, discrepancies in her service
book, delayed payment of bonus, unpaid allowances and departmental
correspondence concerning the School’s compliance with Section 10(1) of the
Act. She also disputes the inspection reports, contending that certain enquiries
were conducted behind her back and failed to adequately address her
grievances. She attributes the delay in pursuing her claims to repeated
attempts to obtain those records, including through proceedings under the
Right to Information Act. She relies upon the departmental calculations of
arrears and seeks payment of her outstanding dues with interest.
14. Ms. Khanna also questions the maintainability and bona fides of the
School’s challenge. She alleges suppression of material facts and relies upon
observations of the Division Bench in earlier proceedings, invoking the
principles of estoppel and res judicata . She further questions the constitution
and functioning of the School’s Managing Committee, refers to the previous
association of its counsel with that Committee, and relies upon
correspondence concerning intervention in the departmental proceedings. She
also refers to reports concerning the School’s management and alleges
financial irregularities in its functioning. She maintains that the School cannot
disown its own statutory declarations or seek discretionary relief while
disregarding earlier judicial directions.
Analysis
15. Section 10(1) of the Act requires recognised private schools to provide
their employees with pay, allowances and other prescribed benefits no less
than those available to employees of corresponding status in schools run by
the appropriate authority. The School does not dispute this obligation. The
disagreement concerns the status by reference to which Ms. Khanna’s pay was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:40:13
W.P.(C) 6514/2015 & CONT.CAS(C) 78/2016 Page 8 of 22
to be fixed, and whether any amount remains unpaid.
16. Rules 96 and 98 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 [“the
Rules”] are relevant in this regard. Rule 96 provides for recruitment through
the prescribed Selection Committee, while Rule 98 identifies the Managing
Committee as the appointing authority. A substantive appointment or
promotion must have a foundation in the applicable recruitment process.
Similarly, financial upgradation, where admissible, does not by itself amount
to appointment to a higher post. In Geeta Khanna the Division Bench held
that an erroneous designation appearing in a staff statement could not, in the
absence of appointment to the post concerned, confer a right to regularisation
in that post.
17. The School’s staff statements give conflicting accounts of Ms.
Khanna’s designation. The statement for 2001-02 records her as a TGT,
th th
recruited on 6 January, 1994 and confirmed on 6 January, 1995. By
contrast, the statements for 2002-03 to 2005-06 describe her as an Assistant
Teacher. The position changes again in the 2006-07 statement, which records
her as PGT (English), teaching Classes VII to XI in English and Geography,
at a basic pay of INR 6,725. As returns furnished by the School to the
Directorate, these statements constitute relevant contemporaneous evidence
and cannot be dismissed merely on the assertion that their entries were
erroneous. They do not, however, conclusively establish that she was
appointed or promoted to the posts recorded, or the dates of such appointment
or promotion. Their evidentiary weight must be assessed alongside the
appointment, service and salary records, and the School’s explanation for the
conflicting entries.
18. The Director relied principally on the 2001-02 statement. He noted that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:40:13
W.P.(C) 6514/2015 & CONT.CAS(C) 78/2016 Page 9 of 22
Ms. Khanna was listed alongside other TGTs and observed that there was
“not a single mistake in filling the particulars” and rejected the School’s
explanation that her designation had been entered incorrectly. This reasoning
did not account for the contrary entries in the subsequent returns. The
School’s case that Ms. Khanna was placed in the TGT pay scale only from
April 2003 was also not examined. These records therefore had to be
reconciled before it could be concluded that Ms. Khanna had been appointed
as a TGT in January 1994.
19. The correspondence of February 2006 relating to appointment merits
th
closer scrutiny. Letter No. 753 dated 7 February, 2006 has subject/heading
“Appointment Letter for the post of Teacher w.e.f. 06-01-1994”. It refers to
th
Ms. Khanna’s application dated 6 January, 1994 and the interview that
followed, and offers her “the post of a Teacher” at a basic salary of “Rs. 6550/-
(Present Basic)” in the pay scale of INR 5,500-175-9,000. The covering letter
th
dated 8 February, 2006 records that the Director had required the School to
issue appointment letters in conformity with the Act and the Rules. It further
states: “This appointment letter will replace with previous appointment letter
issued to you by the school authorities.” The Director therefore treated the
earlier undated appointment letter as having been superseded and, relying on
the TGT pay scale mentioned in Letter No. 753, concluded that Ms. Khanna
th
had been appointed as a TGT from 6 January, 1994. That conclusion does
not follow from the letter. It describes the post only as “Teacher”, and
expressly identifies INR 6,550 as her “Present Basic”. The pay scale specified
in a letter issued in 2006 cannot, without more, establish the post to which she
was originally appointed in 1994.
20. The significance of this distinction becomes clearer from another letter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:40:13
W.P.(C) 6514/2015 & CONT.CAS(C) 78/2016 Page 10 of 22
th
issued by the School on 7 February, 2006, bearing No. 812, which states:
“ You were appointed as Assistant Teacher in the pay scale of 4500-125-7000
w.e.f. 1st April, 1997. Your basic salary on 01-04-2002 was Rs. 5125/-.”
It continues:
“ In April 2003, you were placed as TGT in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-175-
9000 at a Basic Salary of Rs. 6000/-. Your basic salary w.e.f. 1st April, 2005
is Rs. 6550/- .”
This letter distinguishes Ms. Khanna’s initial appointment as Assistant
Teacher from her subsequent placement in the TGT scale and accounts for the
basic salary of INR 6,550 recorded in Letter No. 753. However, its reference
to an appointment commencing in April 1997 is inconsistent with her
admitted date of joining in January 1994. Further, the School’s staff
statements for 2003-04 to 2005-06 continued to describe her as Assistant
Teacher, notwithstanding the stated placement in the TGT scale from April
2003. These inconsistencies required examination. The Director, however,
did not reconcile the two letters or assess them against the contemporaneous
service and salary records before concluding that Ms. Khanna had been
appointed as a TGT in January 1994.
st
21. Ms. Khanna’s claim to promotion as PGT with effect from 1 April,
2006 rests primarily on the School’s staff statement for 2006-07. Her name
appears at serial No. 5, with three other PGTs and immediately before the
TGT entries. The statement also records that she taught English and
Geography to Classes VII to XI. The Director regarded these particulars as
too specific to have been entered by mistake. He also took note of the warning
rd
issued by the Education Officer to the School on 3 December, 2010 for
furnishing inconsistent information. However, subsequently on inspection,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:40:13
W.P.(C) 6514/2015 & CONT.CAS(C) 78/2016 Page 11 of 22
the School’s explanation that the designation had been entered through
“human error” was accepted.
22. The salary particulars also point in a different direction. The basic pay
of INR 6,725 shown in the staff statement for 2006-07 represents an increase
of INR 175 over the earlier basic pay of INR 6,550, and is consistent with the
TGT scale of INR 5,500-175-9,000. The prescribed PGT scale of INR 6,500-
200-10,500 carried an increment of INR 200. Nor does the fact that Ms.
Khanna taught up to Class XI establish that she was appointed as PGT. There
is no promotion order, decision of the Managing Committee, or record of her
selection against a PGT vacancy. Completion of twelve years of service may,
subject to the applicable conditions, entitle an employee to financial
upgradation under the ACP Scheme; it does not amount to substantive
promotion to the post of PGT.
23. Ms. Khanna’s contemporaneous service records are equally telling. In
th
her request dated 8 May, 2006 for an experience certificate, she described
th
herself as “presently class teacher of 7 Std. and a permanent T.G.T.”. Her
annual appraisal report for 2007-08 records the following under the heading
Designation:
“ w.e.f. April 2003 – T.G.T. – vide your letter Ref. No. TPS/Adm/2006/812
th
dated 7 Feb., 06 ”
th
The report separately records 6 January, 1994 as her date of initial
appointment and identifies the TGT pay scale as applicable from April 2003.
It bears a signature in her name and records personal submission in April
2008. The appraisal reports for 2008-09 and 2009-10 also record her
th
designation as TGT and bear her signatures, the latter dated 7 April, 2010.
These records were prepared during her employment and consistently
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:40:13
W.P.(C) 6514/2015 & CONT.CAS(C) 78/2016 Page 12 of 22
distinguish her original appointment from her subsequent placement in the
TGT grade.
24. Ms. Khanna maintains that she was unaware of any PGT promotion
until she obtained the staff statement under the Right to Information Act in
2010. Even accepting that explanation, it does not establish that she had been
promoted. The impugned order neither reconciles the contemporaneous
service nor identifies any promotion order for the post of PGT.
4
25. The decision in Manjeet Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors ., relied
in the impugned order, does not advance Ms. Khanna’s case. There, the
employee had been expressly appointed as a Physical Education Teacher, and
the management subsequently sought to restrict the appointment to the
primary section, although the appointment letter contained no such limitation.
Here, the dispute concerns Ms. Khanna’s original designation and an alleged
subsequent promotion, neither of which can be determined from the
nomenclature of Letter No. 753 alone. Her reliance upon the School’s
upgradation to the senior-secondary level is also insufficient. No material
establishes that the approval was obtained upon a representation that she had
been appointed as PGT, or that such an appointment was made through the
prescribed process.
26. To conclude, although the School’s records contain discrepancies, the
evidence, considered as a whole, does not sustain the Director’s findings that
th
Ms. Khanna was appointed as a TGT on 6 January, 1994 and promoted as a
st
PGT on 1 April, 2006. The appointment correspondence, salary progression
and contemporaneous service records instead support the School’s account of
4
2006:DHC:7730.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:40:13
W.P.(C) 6514/2015 & CONT.CAS(C) 78/2016 Page 13 of 22
her initial service in the Assistant Teacher category and placement in the TGT
grade from April 2003. The Director’s findings to the contrary are
unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
Monetary entitlement and consequential relief
th
27. In its order dated 25 April, 2014, the Additional Director of Education
accepted the Deputy Controller of Accounts’ calculation based on the salary
of a “similarly placed TGT teacher appointed in a government school”. The
amount payable was worked out at INR 47,60,187, against INR 30,87,925
shown as paid, resulting in arrears of INR 16,72,262. Ms. Khanna, however,
had claimed INR 17,40,532 in her representation. Her due-and-drawn
statements assumed TGT pay from January 1994 to March 2006 and PGT pay
th
thereafter. Although the order dated 5 May, 2015 accepted those
designations, it neither recalculated the arrears on that basis nor explained the
difference between the two figures.
28. The computation of arrears founded upon the Director’s findings
concerning Ms. Khanna’s appointment as TGT in January 1994 and
promotion as PGT in April 2006 cannot stand in light of findings recorded
above. That does not, however, resolve whether the School paid her the salary
and allowances due under Section 10(1) of the Act. The rejection of those
claims does not establish that her pay was correctly fixed or revised under the
successive Pay Commissions. Any outstanding entitlement must therefore be
determined on the basis of her service particulars as found above, including
placement in the TGT grade from April 2003, the applicable pay revisions
and the amounts actually paid.
29. The supplementary inspection report records that Ms. Khanna was paid
st
in the TGT scale from 1 April, 2003 and that eligible teachers received the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:40:13
W.P.(C) 6514/2015 & CONT.CAS(C) 78/2016 Page 14 of 22
benefits of the Sixth Pay Commission. Ms. Khanna disputes the adequacy of
the inspection and the reliability of the School’s records. The report is
relevant, but cannot substitute for verification of the amounts actually due and
paid to her.
30. That exercise shall cover the applicable pay revisions, allowances and
bonus, wherever payable, and any outstanding salary for the relevant periods.
Payments or deductions arising from suspension and other service
proceedings must be reconciled with the judicial orders governing those
periods, without reopening matters already decided or allowing duplication.
Any arrears must be determined from the applicable entitlements and verified
payment records, rather than inferred merely from discrepancies in the
School’s documents.
31. The School’s objection concerning delay does not, by itself, foreclose
5
this limited exercise. In Union of India v. Tarsem Singh , the Supreme Court
recognised that incorrect pay fixation gives rise to a recurring cause of action,
although recovery of past arrears may be restricted on account of delay,
ordinarily to three years preceding the writ petition.
32. Nor do the earlier judicial orders preclude the findings reached here. In
th
LPA 276/2016, the Division Bench, on 29 November, 2016, upheld the
direction for implementation of the DoE’s order in contempt proceedings,
expressly observing that the underlying dispute had not been adjudicated on
merits. Its narration of Ms. Khanna’s appointment and promotion was not an
th
independent determination of those questions. Similarly, the order dated 26
September, 2017 in LPA 281/2017 concerned interim deposits and
5
(2008) 8 SCC 648.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:40:13
W.P.(C) 6514/2015 & CONT.CAS(C) 78/2016 Page 15 of 22
compliance, while preserving the parties’ contentions, including interest.
These orders remain relevant to the accounting of deposits and payments
made pursuant to them, but do not foreclose examination of the impugned
order on its merits.
33. Ms. Khanna has also questioned the School’s management, the
maintenance of its records and the conduct of the departmental proceedings.
These objections have been considered, but they do not alter the Court’s
findings concerning her appointment and service status. Any independent
allegations of regulatory irregularities must be addressed, where warranted,
under the applicable statutory framework.
34. The matter must, therefore, be remitted to the DoE for the limited
purpose of determining Ms. Khanna’s outstanding monetary entitlements, if
any. The scope of this exercise shall be confined to the matters identified
above, without reopening the findings concerning her appointment and
promotion.
35. Accordingly, W.P.(C) 6514/2015 is allowed, and the DoE’s order dated
5th May, 2015 is set aside. The School shall furnish an itemised due-and-
drawn statement, with supporting records, to the DoE within six weeks,
computed on the basis of Ms. Khanna’s service as an Assistant Teacher from
January 1994 and placement in the TGT grade from April 2003. Ms. Khanna
shall be afforded four weeks thereafter to identify any discrepancies, to which
the School may respond within two weeks. After affording both parties an
opportunity of hearing, the DoE shall examine the records and pass a reasoned
order within twelve weeks of receiving the School’s response or expiry of the
period prescribed for the same, determining any legally recoverable shortfall
in salary and allowances in accordance with law and the earlier judicial orders,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:40:13
W.P.(C) 6514/2015 & CONT.CAS(C) 78/2016 Page 16 of 22
after giving credit for payments already made towards the same dues. The
findings concerning her claimed appointment as TGT in 1994 and promotion
as PGT in 2006 shall not be reopened.
Contempt proceedings
th
36. The connected contempt petition arises from the order dated 27 May,
2015 in CONT.CAS(C) 13/2015, directing the School to comply with the
th
DoE’s order dated 5 May, 2015 within six weeks, failing which costs of INR
50,000 would become payable to Ms. Khanna. The Division Bench declined
to interfere with that direction in LPA 276/2016. The order was binding upon
the School while it remained operative, notwithstanding its challenge to the
underlying departmental determination.
37. During the pendency of the writ petition, however, this Court made
further orders requiring the disputed amount to be deposited with the Registry.
th
The order dated 26 September, 2017 in LPA 281/2017 also referred to
deposit of the entire arrears with interest at 5% per annum, while leaving the
parties’ contentions concerning interest open. The School subsequently
th
deposited the principal amount of INR 16,72,262. On 29 November, 2017,
this Court permitted release of half that amount to Ms. Khanna as an interim
measure, subject to an indemnity bond. The Registrar General accepted her
th
bond and directed release of INR 8,36,131 on 11 December, 2017.
38. Ms. Khanna contends that deposit of the amount with the Registry did
th
not constitute compliance with the direction dated 27 May, 2015, which
required payment to her. She also disputes the School’s assertion in its
th
affidavit dated 13 January, 2023 that no further direct payment was required
following the deposit. However, subsequent orders directed that the disputed
amount be deposited with the Registry and regulated its disbursement. The
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:40:13
W.P.(C) 6514/2015 & CONT.CAS(C) 78/2016 Page 17 of 22
School’s conduct must therefore be considered in light of those orders,
without overlooking the delay in complying with the original direction.
39. A judicial order must be complied with so long as it remains operative,
and its subsequent vacation does not justify disobedience during the period it
was in force. This principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Prithawi
6
Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand . In the present case, the contempt Court,
th
by order dated 18 December, 2018, expressly found that the School had
deposited the amount after expiry of the six-week period and directed
payment of INR 50,000 as costs to Ms. Khanna within one week. That
direction has not been set aside. The present judgment does not extinguish the
liability arising from it.
40. Nonetheless, the Court must now decide whether the contempt
proceedings serve any further purpose. The principal amount was eventually
deposited pursuant to judicial directions, its disbursement became subject to
subsequent orders of this Court, and the departmental determination
underlying the original direction has now been set aside. The delay in
compliance has already resulted in a specific costs direction, which remains
enforceable. While these circumstances do not absolve the School of its
earlier delay, the Court does not consider any further action in contempt
warranted. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of.
Interim payments and final directions
41. The setting aside of the DoE’s order leaves the Court to determine what
should happen to the amount deposited with the Registry and the INR
8,36,131 directed to be released to Ms. Khanna. The latter payment was
6
(2004) 7 SCC 261.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:40:13
W.P.(C) 6514/2015 & CONT.CAS(C) 78/2016 Page 18 of 22
th
expressly provisional. Under her indemnity bond dated 8 December, 2017,
Ms. Khanna undertook to refund the amount if this Court directed her to do
so.
42. The ordinary principle is that a party who has received a benefit under
an interim order may be required to restore it when the final decision does not
7
support that benefit. In South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P . , the
Supreme Court considered a dispute concerning enhanced royalty on coal,
where consumers had withheld payment pursuant to interim judicial orders,
although their challenge ultimately failed. In that context, the Court held that
a party benefiting from an interim order may be required to restore the
advantage gained or compensate the other party for the resulting loss. It
nevertheless recognised that restitution may be declined where, in the
circumstances of the case, it would defeat rather than serve the ends of justice.
Considering this principle, the question is therefore not answered merely by
the School’s success in the writ petition.
43. There are reasons for leaving the amount already released to Ms.
Khanna undisturbed. Her claim was founded substantially upon staff
statements and appointment correspondence issued by the School itself,
which contained material inconsistencies concerning her service status.
Although these documents do not establish her claimed appointment and
promotion, the dispute cannot be attributed to any misrepresentation or
misconduct on her part. The amount of INR 8,36,131 was released pursuant
to an order of this Court, upon furnishing an indemnity bond, and has
remained with her for nearly nine years. The School’s own delay in complying
7
(2003) 8 SCC 648.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:40:13
W.P.(C) 6514/2015 & CONT.CAS(C) 78/2016 Page 19 of 22
with the earlier judicial directions has also been the subject of a separate costs
order. Importantly, the setting aside of the DoE’s determination does not
establish that no statutory arrears were payable to Ms. Khanna; that question
remains subject to the limited verification directed above. Having regard to
these circumstances, the Court considers it inequitable to require repayment
of the amount already released, even if the subsequent verification discloses
a lesser monetary entitlement. Accordingly, no direction for restitution under
the indemnity bond is warranted. This conclusion is confined to the peculiar
circumstances of the case and does not amount to recognition of the higher
service status claimed by Ms. Khanna.
44. The amount of INR 8,36,131 already released to Ms. Khanna shall be
adjusted against any arrears found payable pursuant to the verification
directed in paragraph 35. Only the balance, if any, shall remain payable to her.
However, if the amount already released exceeds her verified entitlement, no
recovery of the excess shall be directed.
45. The amount still held by the Registry should remain available until the
limited verification is completed. An immediate refund to the School would
be premature when the question of any unpaid statutory salary has yet to be
reconciled. Equally, the deposit cannot be treated as establishing Ms.
Khanna’s entitlement to the amount originally assessed by the DoE. It remains
security for such monetary liability, if any, as may be established on the basis
now determined.
46. Accordingly, the following directions are issued:
(i) The Registry shall, within two weeks, furnish the parties and the DoE
with a statement of the amounts deposited, disbursed and held in W.P.(C)
6514/2015, including interest deposited and accrued on investments. The
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:40:13
W.P.(C) 6514/2015 & CONT.CAS(C) 78/2016 Page 20 of 22
balance shall remain invested pending the verification directed in paragraph
35.
(ii) Any legally recoverable arrears established upon verification shall
carry simple interest at 6% per annum from the respective dates on which they
became payable until payment. Credit shall be given for amounts already
received by Ms. Khanna, including the sum disbursed pursuant to the orders
th th
dated 29 November and 11 December, 2017, from the dates of actual
payment. The earlier direction concerning interest at 5% was interlocutory
and shall not govern this calculation. No recovery shall be made from Ms.
Khanna, even if the amount already released exceeds her verified entitlement.
(iii) The DoE shall communicate its determination, together with the
computation of the net amount payable, to the parties and the Registry. Upon
expiry of four weeks from such communication, and unless the determination
has been stayed by a competent Court, the Registry shall release to Ms.
Khanna the amount found payable, including interest, from the funds
available with it. Any balance remaining thereafter, together with the
proportionate accrued investment interest, shall be refunded to the School. If
no further amount is found payable, the entire amount remaining with the
Registry, together with accrued investment interest, shall be refunded to the
School, subject to any subsisting judicial order. Interest earned on the deposits
shall be accounted for in determining the amounts to be disbursed and shall
not constitute an additional entitlement over the interest awarded under
direction (ii). If the funds available with the Registry are insufficient to satisfy
the amount determined, the School shall pay the shortfall within four weeks
of the DoE’s determination, subject to any subsisting stay.
th
(iv) The costs of INR 50,000 directed by order dated 18 December, 2018
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:40:13
W.P.(C) 6514/2015 & CONT.CAS(C) 78/2016 Page 21 of 22
shall remain payable to Ms. Khanna unless already satisfied. The School shall
furnish proof of any earlier payment within two weeks and, if unpaid,
discharge the liability within four weeks from the date of this judgment.
47. W.P.(C) 6514/2015 and CONT.CAS(C) 78/2016 stand disposed of in
these terms. The conclusions reached in the writ petition concern the service
status and monetary claim examined in these proceedings and do not reopen
or affect independent orders passed in matters relating to Ms. Khanna’s
suspension, termination, reinstatement or back wages. The pending
applications also stand disposed of. Apart from the costs direction expressly
preserved above, there shall be no further order as to costs.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
OCTOBER 27, 2026
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:40:13
W.P.(C) 6514/2015 & CONT.CAS(C) 78/2016 Page 22 of 22