Delhi HC Rejects Teacher’s TGT-1994, PGT-2006 Claims, Lets Her Keep ₹8.36 Lakh While Arrears Are Rechecked

Ms. Bindu Khanna joined The Pinnacle School on 6 January 1994.

She claimed appointment as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT), promotion to Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) from 1 April 2006, and unpaid salary arrears under successive Pay Commissions.

The School maintained that she initially served as an Assistant Teacher and was placed in the TGT grade from April 2003, but was never promoted to PGT.

The Directorate of Education (DoE), relying principally on staff statements, ordered payment of arrears; the School challenged that order.

In related contempt proceedings, the School had deposited the assessed principal amount, half of which was released to Ms. Khanna under an indemnity bond.

Section 10(1) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 requires recognised private schools to provide employees pay and benefits no less than those available to employees of corresponding status in government schools.

Rules 96 and 98 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 require appointments and promotions to have a foundation in the prescribed selection process and the authority of the Managing Committee; financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme does not itself amount to substantive promotion.

Under Geeta Khanna v. Manager, Arvind Gupta DAV Centenary School, an erroneous staff-statement designation alone does not confer entitlement to a post.

Union of India v. Tarsem Singh recognises recurring claims for incorrect pay fixation, while permitting restriction of past arrears for delay.

Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand establishes that a subsisting judicial order must be obeyed until set aside.

Under South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P., restitution following an interim order is governed by the justice of the circumstances and is not automatic.

The School’s staff statements were relevant evidence but conflicted with one another and did not, by themselves, prove appointment or promotion.

The DoE failed to reconcile those statements with the February 2006 appointment correspondence, salary progression, and Ms. Khanna’s contemporaneous records, which supported initial service as an Assistant Teacher and placement in the TGT grade from April 2003.

No promotion order or selection record established a PGT appointment; teaching senior classes and eligibility for ACP benefits were insufficient.

The arrears assessment, founded on the contrary service-status findings, therefore could not stand.

Nevertheless, those findings did not resolve whether pay and allowances were correctly fixed under Section 10(1), so a limited verification was required.

In the contempt matter, the School’s delayed compliance remained subject to the unvacated costs order, but the later deposits and the setting aside of the underlying DoE determination made further contempt action unnecessary.

Given the provisional nature of the amount released, the School’s inconsistent records, and the unresolved possibility of statutory arrears, the Court found repayment inequitable while directing that the released sum be credited against any verified entitlement.

It remitted the matter to the DoE solely to determine any legally recoverable shortfall, on the basis that Ms. Khanna served as an Assistant Teacher from January 1994 and was placed in the TGT grade from April 2003; the findings that she was appointed as a TGT in 1994 or promoted to PGT in 2006 may not be reopened.

Verified arrears are to carry simple interest at 6% per annum, with credit for amounts already received.

The INR 8,36,131 released to Ms. Khanna is not recoverable, even if it exceeds her verified entitlement.

The Registry is to retain the remaining funds pending verification and then release any amount found payable, returning any balance to the School.

The contempt petition was disposed of without further contempt action; the INR 50,000 costs order remained payable unless already satisfied.