Delhi High Court
Lakshmi Sethi And Ors vs Darbari Lal Dav Model School & Ors. on 24 December, 2024
Author: Jyoti Singh
Bench: Jyoti Singh
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 24th December, 2024
+ W.P.(C) 12419/2021 and CM APPLs. 39045/2021 and 56229/2022
LAKSHMI SETHI AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar
Utkarsh, Mr. Manoj Kumar and Ms. Ashna Khan,
Advocates.
versus
DARBARI LAL DAV MODEL SCHOOL & ORS......Respondents
Through: Mr. Anurag Lakhotia, Advocate for
R1 and R2.
Mr. Sujeet Kumar Mishra and Mr. Sanyam,
Advocates for R3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
JUDGEMENT
JYOTI SINGH, J.
1. Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Article
226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to Darbari Lal DAV Model
School/Respondents No.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘School’) to
revise and re-fix the pay of the Petitioners as per recommendations of 7th
Central Pay Commission (CPC) w.e.f. 01.01.2016 along with arrears and
interest @ 24% per annum as also for a direction to pay Dearness Allowance
(DA) at the declared rates and as revised from time to time by the
Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD). Direction is also sought to the
School to regularly issue salary slips to the Petitioners.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 12419/2021 Page 1 of 28
Signing Date:03.01.2025
13:25:08
2. Petitioners are serving employees of the School and were appointed
on different dates and on different posts. Petitioner No. 4 namely, Ms. Dolly
Takkar has expired and her legal representative was brought on record.
Tabular representation indicating the required details of the Petitioners is as
follows:-
Petitioner Name of the Date of Designation
No. Petitioner Appointment
1 Lakshmi Sethi 01.04.2013 Librarian
2 Arun Kukreja 16.08.1989 PGT Physics.
3 Kusum Dua 15.07.1987 PRT
4 Virender Singh 05.07.1993 PRT
Takkar, legal
representative of Late
Dolly Takkar
5 Veena Das 04.07.1997 PRT
6 Shabnam Jain 01.07.1996 PRT
7 Sunita Lal 05.07.1982 PRT
8 Rupali Sharma 04.07.1997 PRT
9 Kapil Sejwal 04.07.2005 PRT
10 Shilpi Debnath 04.07.1997 PRT Science
11 Priti Sharma 01.07.2003 PRT
12 Sonam Bansal 04.07.2005 PRT
13 Vandana Bansal 06.10.2001 PRT
14 Vimmi Chaudhry 05.07.1993 PRT English
15 Mona Bhattacharjee 05.07.1993 PRT
16 Kanchan Sharma 04.07.1997 PRT
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 12419/2021 Page 2 of 28
Signing Date:03.01.2025
13:25:08
17 Archana Soperna 01.04.2004 PRT
18 Bhawna Kapoor 04.07.1997 PRT
19 Savita Mehra 01.07.1995 PRT
(Currently,
TGT)
20 Kiran Sharma 04.07.1997 PRT
21 Ranjit Kumar Roy 12.07.1990 LAB
Attendant
(Currently,
Lab Assistant)
22 Dinesh Kumar 01.11.1993 LAB
Chauhan Attendant
(Currently,
Lab Assistant)
23 Jagdish Prasad 10.07.1991 LAB
Maurya Attendant
(Currently,
Lab Assistant)
24 Tankesh Kumar 10.07.1991 LAB
Attendant
(Currently,
Lab Assistant)
25 Birender Kumar 05.07.1993 LAB
Badola Attendant
(Currently,
Lab Assistant)
26 Parul Gupta 01.07.1996 PRT
27 Roomy Talwar 01.07.1995 PRT
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 12419/2021 Page 3 of 28
Signing Date:03.01.2025
13:25:08
28 Ritu Jain 01.07.1996 PRT Computer
Science
(Currently,
TGT Computer
Science)
29 Simmi Taneja 04.07.1997 PRT (Science)
30 Vandana Aneja 01.07.1996 PRT Computer
Science
(Currently,
TGT Computer
Science)
31 Janak Singh Rana 10.07.1991 LAB
Attendant
(Currently,
Lab Assistant)
3. Case of the Petitioners is that the School is governed by provisions of
the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 (DSEAR) and in terms
of Section 10(1) of Delhi School Education Act, 1973, Petitioners are
entitled to scales of pay and allowances at par with employees of
corresponding status in schools run by GNCTD. Central Pay Commissions’
recommendations have been adopted by GNCTD from time to time
including 7th CPC, but despite passage of over 8 years from the date when
7th CPC recommendations were given effect to, pay and allowances of the
Petitioners have not been revised and arrears are outstanding w.e.f.
01.01.2016. DoE has issued several circulars/orders directing all private
recognised schools to implement the recommendations of Pay Commissions
and revise the salary and allowances but the School is totally non-compliant
with the said directions. Petitioners also complain that they are entitled to
DA at the current rates but the School has been giving DA at a rate which is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 12419/2021 Page 4 of 28
Signing Date:03.01.2025
13:25:08
one step below. Petitioners urge that salary slips have not been issued from
April, 2021 and thus they are in the dark on the exact components of pay
they are receiving and seek directions to the School to issue the salary slips.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the School cannot
absolve itself of the liability to carry out pay revision under 7 th CPC as this
is a statutory obligation under Section 10(1) of DSEAR. Being a recognised
private school, the School is under a mandate to fix the scales of pay and
allowances as well as grant pension/gratuity etc. at par with employees of
corresponding status in the schools run by GNCTD and this legal
proposition is no longer res integra. Reliance was placed on the judgments
of this Court in :-
a. Omita Mago and Others v. Ahlcon Public School and
Another, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 5020;
b. Shikha Sharma v. Guru Harkrishan Public School & Ors,
2021 SCC OnLine Del 5011;
c. Amrita Pritam and Others v. S.S. Mota Singh Junior Model
School and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4470;
d. Kuttamparampath Sudha Nair v. Managing Committee Sri
Sathya Sai Vidya Vihar and Another, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2511
e. Ahlcon Public School v. Omita Mago and Ors., 2023 SCC
OnLine Del 368;
f. Meenu Sachdev v. Managing Committee Sri Sathya Sai Vidya
Vihar & Anr., decided on 14.12.2022, W.P. (C) No. 2353/2022;
g. Mukesh Kumar Verma v. Lions Public School and Others,
2022 SCC OnLine Del 5129; and
h. Bala Rani Bhatia v. Directorate of Education and Others,
2024 SCC OnLine Del 6948.
5. It was further argued that Directorate of Education (‘DoE’) has issued
many circulars/orders from time to time including order dated 25.08.2017, in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 12419/2021 Page 5 of 28
Signing Date:03.01.2025
13:25:08
exercise of powers conferred under Sections 17(3), 18(4) and (5) and 24(3)
read with Rules 50, 51, 177 and 180 of DSEAR, directing Managing
Committees of all private aided/unaided recognized schools to implement
the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 (‘2016 Rules’), but
there is total inaction on the part of the School. None of the three defences
viz: (a) delay and laches; (b) paucity of funds; and (c) no fee hike, taken by
the School to deny revision of pay under 7th CPC are tenable in law. Insofar
as the alleged paucity of funds is concerned, on a factual note this is a false
stand as the School has enough funds and assets to release the arrears and
fulfil the statutory obligation and in any case, the Supreme Court and this
Court have negated this contention in a number of judgments holding that
financial crunch cannot be a ground to deny benefits of pay revision under
the recommendations of Pay Commissions. Doctrine of delay and laches
cannot be taken as a shield to deny pay revisions and as per settled law even
arrears cannot be restricted as implementation of Pay Commission’s
recommendations is a statutory obligation. Counsel contended that Fee hike
cannot be linked to pay revision by the School albeit as a matter of fact and
record, School has enhanced the fee three times in the last few years, for
which supporting documents were handed over by the learned counsel
during the hearing. To fortify the legal plea, reliance was placed on the
judgements of this Court in Omita Mago (supra) and Rukmini Devi
Jaipuria Public School v. Sadhna Payal and Others, 2012 SCC OnLine
Del 6535.
6. Per contra, Mr. Anurag Lakhotia, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the School, at the outset, raised an objection to the maintainability
of the writ petition on ground of delay and laches and argued that Petitioners
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 12419/2021 Page 6 of 28
Signing Date:03.01.2025
13:25:08
are seeking revision of pay as well as arrears w.e.f. 01.01.2016 under 7 th
CPC but there is no explanation for the gross delay in approaching the Court
in the year 2021. It was argued that Courts aid those who are vigilant and
not those who sleep over their rights. Under the Limitation Act, 1963, a suit
for recovery of money can only be filed within 3 years from the date of
cause of action and thus a writ Court cannot and should not grant a relief
which is barred under the Limitation Act. Present writ petition is for
recovery of arrears of salaries and is barred by limitation and should be
dismissed on this ground alone. To fortify his stand, learned counsel relied
on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Ritika Sharma v.
DAV Public Primary School & Ors., LPA No. 32/2021, decided on
22.01.2021, wherein it was held that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for
recovery of dues, particularly, if the same are otherwise barred by limitation.
Any judgment which holds that law of limitation or doctrine of delay and
laches will not apply to claims of pay revision will be contrary to the
judgments on this issue in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India and Others,
(1995) 5 SCC 628; Union of India and Others v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8
SCC 648; State of Orissa and Another v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC
436; and Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak v. Municipal Corpn., Bhavnagar,
(2022) 18 SCC 144 and of this Court in Kirti Jain v. Kulachi Hansraj
Model School & Others, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13221, and will be per
incuriam.
7. It was argued that the School runs under the aegis of DAV College
Management Committee, which has been successfully running and
managing schools from the 19th century with a goal to provide best
education to the children and is a recognised private and unaided school.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 12419/2021 Page 7 of 28
Signing Date:03.01.2025
13:25:08
School has cleared arrears of pay revision under the 6th CPC and is fully
conscious of its obligations towards its employees including teachers.
School is no doubt under an obligation to implement recommendations of
Pay Commissions including 7th CPC, however, DoE is equally bound to
permit fee hike every year so that funds can be collected by the School and
pay revisions can be carried out. Earlier DoE was issuing circulars
permitting fee enhancement, but in the year 2017, the circulars permitting
fee hike were withdrawn. On account of the School not being able to
enhance the fee coupled with several factors such as increase of staff
manifold between 2016 and 2022 as well as exponential increase in the
expenditure due to increase in maximum limit of gratuity from Rs.10 lakhs
to Rs. 20 lakhs etc., School is unable to bear the financial burden of
releasing the arrears of 7th CPC. School has challenged the decision of DoE
with respect to fee hike in W.P. (C) 8073/2019, which is pending and has a
direct bearing on the present writ petition and therefore, this Court should
await the outcome of the decision in the said petition.
8. Learned counsel strenuously urged that the interplay between the
statutory right of a private unaided school to enhance the fee and statutory
duty to revise salaries is fundamental and one cannot be divorced from the
other and this position is recognised by the Supreme Court in Greenfields
Public School v. Anchla & Ors., SLP (C) 543/2024, wherein vide order
dated 02.01.2024, the Supreme Court has stayed the direction of the
Division Bench to release arrears passed in LPA No. 567/2023 upholding
the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 6521/2021, subject to
deposit of 25% of the arrears and the neat legal issue raised before the
Supreme Court is that there is a direct link between the fee hike and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 12419/2021 Page 8 of 28
Signing Date:03.01.2025
13:25:08
payment of revised salaries under recommendations of Pay Commissions.
Further, in Anjali Vaid and Others v. Adarsh World School and Others,
2023 SCC OnLine Del 7423, decided along with the batch of petitions,
considering that the School did not have money to pay revised salaries, this
Court has directed constitution of an independent High Powered Committee
to scrutinise various aspects including revision of fees albeit paragraphs 200,
204 and 205 have been stayed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 830/2023,
decided on 18.12.2023.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of DoE supported the case of the
Petitioners and submitted that the School is an unaided private school
recognised by DoE under provisions of DSEAR and Managing Committee
of the School is bound to comply with its provisions as well as the circulars
issued by DoE from time to time. It was urged that the School is under a
statutory mandate to comply with Section 10(1) of DSEAR which mandates
that employees of recognised private schools shall not be paid scales of pay
and other benefits lesser than those of employees of corresponding status in
schools run by GNCTD. In furtherance of this statutory mandate, DoE has
issued various orders directing both aided and unaided private recognised
schools to ensure implementation of 7th CPC recommendations and in this
context referred to orders/circulars dated 25.08.2017, 09.10.2019 and
18.04.2020 and relied on the judgement of this Court in Lata Rana v.
D.A.V. Public School and Others, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11254, wherein
the Court directed the Respondent School to release arrears of revised pay
under the 6th and 7th CPCs, in view of Section 10(1) of DSEAR. Reliance
was also placed on the judgement in Rukmini Devi Jaipuria Public School
(supra), wherein the Division Bench observed that mere financial burden
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 12419/2021 Page 9 of 28
Signing Date:03.01.2025
13:25:08
cannot be a reason enough to absolve the school of its obligation to
implement Pay Commission’s recommendations. Relying on the judgments
of this Court in Kuttamparampath Sudha Nair (supra) and Shikha Sharma
(supra), it was urged that it is not open to a private recognised school to take
an exception to the statutory obligation under Section 10(1) of DSEAR.
10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and examined their
respective contentions.
11. The neat legal nodus that arises in this writ petition is whether
Petitioners can be denied pay revision under 7th CPC as also DA at the
prevailing rates notified by the Government from time to time. In my view,
it is no longer res integra that Section 10(1) of DSEAR casts a statutory
obligation on Management Committee of every recognised private school,
both aided and unaided, to ensure that its employees are not paid scales of
pay and allowances as well as medical facilities, pension/gratuity etc.
lower/lesser than those paid to employees of corresponding status in schools
run by GNCTD. This Court in Kuttamparampath Sudha Nair (supra),
examined the vexed question of applicability of Section 10(1) of DSEAR to
private recognized unaided schools and held as under:
“20. The issue of applicability of Section 10(1) and other provisions of
Chapter IV of the DSEA&R to unaided minority schools came up for
consideration before the Supreme Court in Frank Anthony (supra) and the
Supreme Court set aside the pre-existing Section 12, which had excluded
the application of Section 10(1) and other provisions to the unaided
minority schools. The Supreme Court also considered whether applying
Section 10(1) would have the impact of eroding the minority character of
the schools which entitles them to a Constitutional protection under Article
30(1) and held that it did not. The Supreme Court had observed that
excellence of every school, aided or unaided, would depend upon the
quality of its teachers and therefore, provisions like Section 10(1)
mandating payment of salary and allowances cannot be characterized as
unreasonable even in respect unaided minority institutions.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 12419/2021 Page 10 of 28
Signing Date:03.01.2025
13:25:08
21. The judgment was followed in several cases and was also relied
upon by the eleven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai
(supra). Relevant paras of the judgment in Frank Anthony (supra) are as
follows:–
“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 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.
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 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 12419/2021 Page 11 of 28
Signing Date:03.01.2025
13:25:08
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.”
22. Relevant paras of the judgment in T.M.A. Pai (supra) are as follows:–
“124. In Lily Kurian v. Sr. Lewina [(1979) 2 SCC 124 : (1979) 1 SCR
820] this Court struck down the power of the Vice-Chancellor to veto
the decision of the management to impose a penalty on a teacher. It
was held that the power of the Vice-Chancellor, while hearing an
appeal against the imposition of the penalty, was uncanalized and
unguided. In Christian Medical College Hospital Employees’ Union v.
Christian Medical College Vellore Assn. (1987) 4 SCC 691 this Court
upheld the application of industrial law to minority colleges, and it
was held that providing a remedy against unfair dismissals would not
infringe Article 30. In Gandhi Faiz-e-am College v. University of Agra
(1975) 2 SCC 283 a law which sought to regulate the working of
minority institutions by providing that a broad-based management
committee could be reconstituted by including therein the Principal
and the seniormost teacher, was valid and not violative of the right
under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. In All Saints High School v.
Govt. of A.P. (1980) 2 SCC 478 a regulation providing that no teacher
would be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank, or terminated
otherwise except with the prior approval of the competent authority,
was held to be invalid, as it sought to confer an unqualified power
upon the competent authority. In Frank Anthony Public School
Employees’ Assn. v. Union of India (1986) 4 SCC 707 the regulation
providing for prior approval for dismissal was held to be invalid,
while the provision for an appeal against the order of dismissal by an
employee to a tribunal was upheld. The regulation requiring prior
approval before suspending an employee was held to be valid, but the
provision, which exempted unaided minority schools from the
regulation that equated the pay and other benefits of employees of
recognized schools with those in schools run by the authority, was
held to be invalid and violative of the equality clause. It was held by
this Court that the regulations regarding pay and allowances for
teachers and staff would not violate Article 30.”
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 12419/2021 Page 12 of 28
Signing Date:03.01.2025
13:25:08
23. The issue again came up before the Supreme Court in Raj Soni v.
Air Officer Incharge (Administration), (1990) 3 SCC 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 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 furtherSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 12419/2021 Page 13 of 28
Signing Date:03.01.2025
13:25:08
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 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 6th CPC
recommendation, was rejected. The Appellant invoked provisions of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 12419/2021 Page 14 of 28
Signing Date:03.01.2025
13:25:08
Section 10(1) of DSEA&R and also relied on 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 under
6th 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 well as unaided) schools to implement 6th 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 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 theSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 12419/2021 Page 15 of 28
Signing Date:03.01.2025
13:25:08
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 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.
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 12419/2021 Page 16 of 28
Signing Date:03.01.2025
13:25:08
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.
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 Pay) Rules,
2016, under which benefits of 7th 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 benefits of 7th 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. Relevant paras of the order dated 17.10.2017 are as
under:–
“In continuation of this Directorate’s Order No.
DE.15(318)/PSB/2016/18117 dated 25/08/2017 and In exercise of the
powers conferred under action 17(3) and section 24(3), of the Delhi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 12419/2021 Page 17 of 28
Signing Date:03.01.2025
13:25:08
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 previous ordersNo.DE. 15/Act/Duggal.
Com/203/99/23039-23988 dated 15.12.1999, F.DE 15/Act/2K/243/
KKK/883-1982 dated 10.02.2005, E.15/Act/2006/738-798 dated
02.02.2006, relevant paras of F.DE/15 (56)/Act/2009/778 dated
11.02.2009, 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 7th Central Pay Commission’s
Recommendations under Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules,
2016 with effect from 01.01.2016.
xxx xxx xxx
2. Period of Implementation of 7th CPC
The benefits of 7th Central Pay Commission Recommendations have
been implemented by the Govt. of India, Department of Expenditure,
Implementation Cell, Ministry of Finance in a staggered manner. As
per the notification dated 25/07/2016 issued by Govt. of India,
Ministry of Finance, basic pay of the Govt. employee has been
increased for the period 01/01/2016 to 30/06/2017 and increased
allowances have been allowed to the Govt. employees w.e.f.
01/07/2017. Thus, in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 10 of
Delhi School Education Act, 1973, the benefits of the
recommendations of 7th CPC to the employees of Private Unaided
Recognized Schools of Delhi will also be extended in a similar
manner.”
xxx xxx xxx
33. The Court notes that the DOE has consistently taken a stand that
the private recognized unaided schools are bound to comply with
provisions of Section 10(1) and this is discernible from Circular dated
15.10.2008 issued by the DOE after the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008
were notified, pursuant to 6th CPC. The Circular was taken note of by the
Division Bench in Dhanwant Kaur (supra) and is extracted in the earlier
part of the judgement. This obviates any doubt that provisions of Section
10(1) of the DSEA&R shall apply to the Respondent/School and it is under
a statutory obligation to pay the revised salaries and emoluments under
7th CPC to the Petitioners, in accordance with the various DOE circulars
and orders referred and alluded to above.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 12419/2021 Page 18 of 28
Signing Date:03.01.2025
13:25:08
12. This issue was again considered by this Court in Shikha Sharma
(supra) and even in the case of an unaided minority school it was reiterated
that employees of the recognised private schools cannot not be deprived of
benefits of Pay Commissions’ recommendations and relevant passage from
the judgment is as under:
“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 that the benefits of 6th and 7th
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 get the benefits of the recommendations as made by the 6th and 7th 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 7th 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.”
13. This position of law has been re-stated and re-affirmed by several
Single Benches of this Court in Omita Mago (supra); Meenu Sachdev
(supra); Mukesh Kumar Verma (supra); Mrs. Nidhi Batra v. Directorate
of Education & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 6656/2022, decided on 20.12.2022;
Dheeraj Sharma and Others v. Neeraj Chandra and Others, 2024 SCC
OnLine Del 3655; and Bala Rani Bhatia (supra). Be it ingeminated that the
Division Bench upheld the judgment of the Single Bench in Omita Mago
(supra) on 24.01.2023 in Ahlcon Public School (supra) and SLP (C)
5353/2023 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 13.10.2023. The defence
of paucity of funds was also negated in this case. Relevant passages from the
judgment of the Division Bench are as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 12419/2021 Page 19 of 28
Signing Date:03.01.2025
13:25:08
“9. Admittedly, the Appellant School is governed by the Delhi School
Education Act, 1973 and Section 10 of the Act applies with all force.
Paucity of funds cannot be a ground for permitting the school not to pay
the emoluments to its employees. The said issue has been dealt with and
has been answered against the schools in several judgments passed by this
Court [Refer to: Kuttamparampath Sudha Nair v. Managing Committee
Sri Sathya Sai Vidya Vihar, W.P.(C) 928/2019 decided on May 06,
2021; Shashi Kiran v. Siiftlltarth International Public School, W.P.(C) No.
2734/2021 and Amrita Pritam v. S. S. Mota Singh Junior Model School,
W.P.(C) 1335/2019 decided September 22, 2021; Shikha Sharma v. Guru
Harkrishan Public School, W.P.(C) 3746/2020, decided on November 16,
2021].
10. All these judgments categorically negate the contention raised by the
schools that they could not pay the teachers due to paucity of funds.
11. The Appellant School has no other alternative but to pay arrears of
salary and emoluments to its employees as fixed by the 7th Pay
Commission. There is no infirmity with the order passed by the learned
Single Judge which requires interference by this Court.”
14. Indisputably, 7th CPC was set up by the Government of India vide
Resolution dated 28.02.2014 and gave its recommendations for revision of
emoluments amongst other recommendations for Central Government
Civilian employees, which were notified by Ministry of Finance on
25.07.2016 in the Official Gazette. Pursuant to these recommendations,
2016, Rules were notified incorporating the revised pay matrix and DoE
adopted the Rules and in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 50 of
DSEAR directed the Managing Committees of the Schools to implement the
2016, Rules and revise the pay structures of their employees at par with
employees of corresponding status in the Government schools. Learned
counsel for DoE had drawn the attention of the Court to several
circulars/orders issued by DoE directing the schools to ensure
implementation of 7th CPC recommendation as was done earlier with respect
to 6th CPC. From a reading of the aforementioned judgments, this Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 12419/2021 Page 20 of 28
Signing Date:03.01.2025
13:25:08
cannot but agree with the Petitioners that their case is covered on all four
corners by these judgments, with no exception being brought forth by the
counsel for the School and denial of pay revision to the Petitioners will be
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is thus held that
Petitioners will be entitled to pay revision under the 7th CPC, in consonance
with CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 by virtue of provisions of Section
10(1) of DSEAR.
15. Three issues were flagged by the counsel for the School to deny pay
revision to the Petitioners under 7th CPC. Coming first to the argument that
School is unable to bear the burden of disbursing the revised salaries and
emoluments, more particularly the arrears, due to financial crunch, suffice
would it be to note that this defence stands negated by this Court in
Kuttamparampath Sudha Nair (supra), placing reliance on the judgments
of the Supreme Court and relevant passages from the said judgement are as
follows:
“35. The next contention of the School, without prejudice to the earlier
contention, was that the School is run by a Charitable Trust and its
financial condition is weak with total number of students being less and
many of them covered under the EWS/DG category. School is thus unable
to bear the burden of disbursing the salaries and the emoluments as per
the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 in respect of the Government
employees. Courts have repeatedly held that paucity of funds or financial
crunch of an employer cannot be an answer to non-compliance of a
statutory mandate. In the context of payment of minimum wages, the
Supreme Court in Unichovi v. State of Kerala, AIR 1962 SC 12 and Hydro
(Engineers) Private Ltd. v. Workmen (1969) 1 SCR 156 held that hardship
to an employer to carry on its activity, on account of payment of minimum
wages, is an irrelevant consideration for determination of minimum
wages. The State assumes that every employer must be in a position to pay
minimum wages before he resorts to employment. In Air Freight Ltd. v.
State of Karnataka, (1999) 6 SCC 567, this solemn principle was
reiterated.
36. In the context of Section 10(1) of DSEA&R, this Court had rejected
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 12419/2021 Page 21 of 28
Signing Date:03.01.2025
13:25:08
the argument of paucity of funds as an irrelevant consideration in the case
of Samaj Shiksha Samiti v. Delhi State Saraswati Shishu Bal Mandir
Karamchari Kalyan (2002) 97 DLT 802. In this context, I may quote a few
passages from the judgment in Veena Sharma (Mrs.) v. The Manager, No.
1 Air Force School Palam 2005 VII AD (Delhi) 517 as follows:–
“18. Two things clearly emerge, from the above position. The
respondent school is under an obligation to comply with the
provisions of Section 10. This obligation is not relieved in any
manner; rather, Section 4(1) reinforces this conclusion. Further, the
Director and other authorities under the Act have no power to exempt
any recognized school from its liability to comply with Section 10. The
reliance of the school on the implied approval by the Central
Government, is in my considered opinion of no consequence. There is
no dispute about he fact that the Directorate itself has been insisting
upon payment of salary and allowances in accordance with Section
10. Indeed that was the condition of recognition itself. The second
issue is that financial hardship is also no consideration or ground to
relieve an employer of his statutory obligation to pay what society has
decreed as the minimum salary of teachers and staff, through the
provisions of Section 10 of the Act.
19. The submission of learned counsel for the school that if the relief
is granted and the pay scales have to be released in favour of the
petitioners, a situation might arise leading to the close of the school is
somewhat similar to the apprehensions voiced by the Management in
Frank Anthony case (supra). The Supreme Court dealt with arguments
in the following terms:–
“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 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 tht the management will do
nothing to the nose to spite the face, merely to put the teachers inSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 12419/2021 Page 22 of 28
Signing Date:03.01.2025
13:25:08
their proper place. The fear expressed by the management here has
the same right 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.
20. The submission of paucity of funds, has to be, therefore, rejected.
The subjective or individual hardship of a management, that too
sponsored by no less an Organization of the stature of Indian Air force,
which even went to the extent of seeking to deny liability on the ground
that the school caters to the children of JCOs (Junior Commissioned
Officers) impliedly perhaps suggesting that the children of such
employees can be taught without compliance with minimum standards
imposed by law, cannot be countenanced.”
37. In this regard, I am also fortified in my view by a judgment of a
Co-ordinate Bench in Deepika Jain v. Rukmini Devi Public School W.P.
(C) 237/2013 decided on 23.09.2013, where implementation of 6th CPC
benefits was sought by the Petitioner and the Court held as follows:–
“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 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.”
38. In view of the above, this Court cannot accept the plea of paucity of
funds and financial crisis raised by the School.”
16. Learned counsel for the School broadly linked its inability to carry out
pay revision to the restraint by DoE to enhance/hike the fee payable by the
students. In my view, Sections 10 and 17 of DSEAR operate in different
fields. No doubt, statutory provisions make it mandatory for a School to file
with the DoE a full statement of fee to be levied during the ensuing
academic session and except with the approval of DoE, School cannot
charge fee in excess of what is stipulated by the Education Department,
however, the two cannot be interlinked and that there is no direct linkage,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 12419/2021 Page 23 of 28
Signing Date:03.01.2025
13:25:08
co-relation and inter-dependence in respect of payment of salary and right to
revise fee, is a view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Ahlcon
Public School (supra), against which SLP was dismissed. This Court is
conscious of the fact that this issue is pending consideration before the
Supreme Court in Greenfields Public School (supra), but there is no stay of
the judgment and the Supreme Court has only stayed the payment of arrears,
subject to the school depositing 25% of the arrears. It is pertinent to mention
that in a batch of appeals one of them being LPA No. 15/2024, the Division
Bench of this Court has observed that hearings of the writ petitions or
appeals in this Court need not be deferred due to the pendency of the issue,
in the absence of stay of the judgement impugned therein. Therefore, the
contention of the School that until it is permitted to hike the fee,
implementation of 7th CPC must be deferred, is rejected. This stand is even
otherwise untenable in the present case, in view of the fact that School has
enhanced the fee in the last two years and this is fortified by the documents
placed by the Petitioners during the hearing of the writ petition.
17. Coming to the last plank of the argument of the School that the writ
petition deserves to be dismissed as grossly barred by delay and laches and
law of limitation or in the alternative arrears be restricted to 3 years prior to
the filing of the writ petition, the argument only merits rejection in view of
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Keraleeya Samajam (supra), albeit
the judgment was in the context of 6th CPC, wherein the Supreme Court held
as follows:-
“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 4th PaySignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 12419/2021 Page 24 of 28
Signing Date:03.01.2025
13:25:08
Commission and 5th Pay Commission ended in favour of the teaching and
non-teaching staff working with the petitioners. Therefore as and when the
6th 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 scale as per the
6th 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 arrears of last
three years preceding the filing of the writ petitions cannot be accepted.
6. The respondents were compelled to approach the Deputy Director
only when the petitioners though were required to pay the wages as per
the applicable rules and as per the recommendation of 6th Pay
Commission, failed to make the payment, the respondents were compelled
to approach the Deputy Director (Education) thereafter. Therefore for the
lapse and inaction on the part of the petitioners, the respondents cannot be
made to suffer and deny the arrears of the salaries as per the 6th Pay
Commission recommendation, which otherwise they are entitled to. Every
time the teachers were not supposed to approach the appropriate authority
for getting the benefit as and when there is a revision of pay as per the pay
commission recommendations.”
18. This issue also arose before a Division Bench of this Court in Vidya
Bharati School v. Directorate of Education and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine
Del 4968 and relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Keraleeya
Samajam (supra), the Division Bench held that limiting the claim of arrears
to three years prior to filing the writ petition is untenable in view of the dicta
of the Supreme Court. The Division Bench held that the School did not
comply with the directions and obligations when it was required to do so by
revising the salaries in accordance with Section 10(1) of the DSEAR on
account of the revision under 6th CPC and now due to lapse of time, it
cannot take away the benefits because of its own recalcitrance to comply
with Government’s directions and statutory obligations. Non-compliance
over a long period would not create any special equities in favour of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 12419/2021 Page 25 of 28
Signing Date:03.01.2025
13:25:08
School and it does not get absolved of its statutory obligation to pay
salaries in terms of 6th Pay Commission’s recommendations, as pay revision
in terms of Pay Commissions’ recommendations is a matter of public policy
with the objective of ensuring that with passage of time purchasing power
of the Government employee is not denuded by inflation and other
relevant factors. I may pen down here at the cost of repetition that even in
Shikha Sharma (supra), this Court has directed release of arrears under
6th CPC to the Petitioners therein without any restrictions/limitation of
three years prior to the filing of the writ petitions and in fact Court also
directed payment of interest @ 6% per annum with a further direction that
on failure to pay the amounts within six months as directed by the Court,
School will incur a liability of payment of a higher rate of interest i.e. 9%
per annum on the arrears of both 6th and 7th CPC. In this context, I may
also allude to a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in D.A.V.
College Managing Committee, Through Its General Secretary v.
Seema Anil Kapoor and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2314, and of the
Single Benches in Meenu Sachdev (supra) and Mukesh Kumar Verma
(supra).
19. In view of this position of law, the argument of the School that the
writ petition is barred by delay and laches and/or the arrears be restricted to
three years cannot be countenanced and the judgments cited on delay and
laches would not aid the School. An argument was raised on behalf of the
School that the judgment in Keraleeya Samajam and Another v. Pratibha
Dattatray Kulkarni (Dead) Through Lrs and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine
SC 853, is per incuriam and does not bind the School herein. Be it noted that
learned counsel concedes that there is no judgment of the Supreme Court to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 12419/2021 Page 26 of 28
Signing Date:03.01.2025
13:25:08
his knowledge where claims of an employee pertaining to pay revisions
under the recommendations of Central Pay Commissions have been rejected
on ground of delay and laches or where arrears have been restricted. There is
a difference between the nature of cases cited by the School and the claims
of the Petitioners herein which pertain to pay revision under 7 th CPC
recommendations. The Supreme Court in Keraleeya Samajam (supra) held
that when 6th CPC was made applicable, duty was cast upon Petitioners’
Institution to pay revised salary/wages and it was not the staff which was
required to move again and again and thus the question of limitation and/or
restricting the arrears to 3 years will not come into play. The contention is
therefore rejected in view of the binding dictum in Keraleeya Samajam
(supra) as well as the judgment of the Division Bench in Vidya Bharati
School (supra), which also binds this Court.
20. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed directing the School to grant
benefits of pay revision to the Petitioners under 7th CPC w.e.f. 01.01.2016
and refix their salaries and allowances. Arrears of differential amounts on
account of revisions shall be disbursed within 12 weeks from today along
with interest @ 6% per annum.
21. Insofar as the issue of Dearness Allowance is concerned, it is left
open to the Petitioners to make a comprehensive representation to the
School pointing out the difference in the DA paid to them and the rates to
which they claim entitlement. As and when, the representation is received,
the same shall be considered by the School in accordance with law and
taking into consideration the revision in DA from time to time, as notified
by GNCTD. Direction is issued to the School to regularly issue the salary
slips to the Petitioners so that they are in a position to ascertain the exact
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 12419/2021 Page 27 of 28
Signing Date:03.01.2025
13:25:08
components of the monthly emoluments paid to them, which is a matter of
right.
22. Writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent, with no orders as
to costs. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
JYOTI SINGH, J
DECEMBER 24 , 2024/shivam
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 12419/2021 Page 28 of 28
Signing Date:03.01.2025
13:25:08
[ad_1]
Source link