Delhi HC Upholds 50% Back Wages For Teacher Kept Out Nearly 15 Years After His Termination Was Set Aside

In brief

The question

Whether the Single Judge’s award of 50% back wages was a reasonable and non-perverse exercise of discretion warranting appellate interference

The court held

The Court held that the Single Judge’s decision disclosed no illegality or perversity warranting interference.

It also directed

It affirmed the award of 50% back wages and admissible allowances for the period from 16 October 2002 to 14 February 2017, while leaving the legality of the respondent’s subsequent removal open for determination in appropriate proceedings. The appeal was dismissed and pending applications were disposed of.

01Facts

Respondent No. 1 joined the School as an Assistant Teacher in 1993 and was later appointed Assistant Teacher (Computer). In 2002, the School terminated him over an allegedly fake computer diploma.

pp. 2–3

In 2017, the High Court set aside the termination for non-compliance with Rules 118 and 120 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (DSER), directed his reinstatement as an Assistant Teacher, and left the question of back wages to the School under Rule 121.

pp. 2–3

The School denied back wages, relying on “no work, no pay” and the alleged false certificate. A later inquiry resulted in his removal in 2023.

pp. 3–4

In the writ petition challenging the denial of back wages, the Single Judge awarded 50% of back wages and admissible allowances for 16 October 2002 to 14 February 2017. The School appealed.

pp. 3–4

02Issues

i.Whether the Single Judge’s award of 50% back wages was a reasonable and non-perverse exercise of discretion warranting appellate interference

pp. 4–5, 7

ii.Whether the School could defend its 2017 denial of back wages on grounds— including the alleged invalidity of the respondent’s original appointment and his later removal—that were not stated in the challenged order

pp. 5–6

03Law Applied

Under Rule 121 of the DSER, the School determines an employee’s entitlement to back wages following reinstatement; Rule 121(2) addresses full salary where an employee is fully exonerated.

p. 5

In an intra-court appeal, a factual finding of the Single Judge should not be disturbed unless it is perverse; the possibility of another view is insufficient (The Management of Narendra & Company Private Limited v. The Workmen of Narendra & Company, (2016) 3 SCC 340).

p. 4

An order must be judged by the reasons stated in it and cannot be validated by later-supplied grounds (Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405).

pp. 5–6

The judgment also cited R. Saravanan v. Periyar University, 2026 INSC 1136, for the principle that a Letters Patent Bench should not interfere with a writ-court decision that is just and reasonable.

p. 4

04Reasoning

The order denying back wages concerned the respondent’s appointment as Assistant Teacher (Computer) and did not find that he was unqualified for his original Assistant Teacher post; indeed, it recorded that, but for the computer-post controversy, the School had no reason to terminate him.

p. 5

The School therefore could not rely on the later inquiry or other grounds absent from that order to justify its 2017 decision.

pp. 5–6

The Single Judge had considered the respondent’s prolonged absence following a termination later set aside, the delay in permitting him to rejoin, the unrebutted claim that he was not gainfully employed, and the School’s decision to give reinstatement effect from the date of termination. In those circumstances, awarding 50%, rather than full, back wages was a reasonable and plausible view, not a perverse one.

p. 6