The legal point established is that the applicability of pensionary benefits under Section 10(1) of the Act is subject to the governing provisions of the EPF Act, and specific government notifications may not apply to non-government employees.

MANJU GOEJ, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition seeks an order or direction in the nature of declaration declaring that the action of the respondent/school in withholding the pensionary benefit of the petitioner is in violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 14 ofthe Constitution and in violation of Section 10 (1) ofthe delhi School Education Act and Rule 177 (2) (a) of the Rules and for a direction for granting the petitioner the pensionary benefits as has been given to one Mr. B. Das, an ex-employee of the school. The petitioner is a retired TGT Physical Education teacher of Delhi Public School, Mathura Road. He joined the school after coming into effect of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and claims that his service is regulated by Section 10 (1) of the Act which envisages parity of pay, pension, gratuity and other prescribed benefits between the employees of recognized private unaided schools with employees of corresponding status in schools run by the appropriate authority. The petitioner signed the service agreement in 1978. He says that he signed the agreement as he was told by the respondents that he was being offered a better scheme of pay, terminal benefits etc. and unless he signed the agreement giving up his claim for revised pay and arrears of pay from 1975 to 1977 and also his claim for General Provident Fund, he would not get revised pay from January 1978 onwards. He then says that after recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission were accepted by the Government of India, he found that the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme offered by the respondents was much inferior to the pension and General Provident Fund of the employees of Government schools and that the petitioner had been shortchanged by the school. In 1998 the respondent/school again sought options from the employees to be fixed in the revised pay scale. The petitioner instead of opting for the scheme provided by the Fifth Pay Commission, represented on 17. 4. 1998 to the school to fix his pay in the Government scales and not the Delhi Public School society scales as the benefits under the said scheme were not at part with the pensionary, medical allowance and other benefits as given to Government school teachers. The petitioner was suspended on 13. 5. 1998 and was subsequently taken back in service on 10. 11. 2001. The petitioner mentions that another col league Mr. B. Das was also similarly suspended and reinstated. The petitioner says that the respondents/school filed an LPA 73/2002 arising from CWP 2975/1998 and the respondents agreed therein to pay pension to Mr. B. Das as envisaged in Rule 10 (1) of the Act and thereupon the petitioner wrote

to the respondent school to withdraw the management's share to the Contributory Provident Fund and treated his share as contribution to General Provident Fund. The petitioner in his letter dated 29. 3. 2004 demanded the same benefit as given to Mr. B. Das. The Regional provident Fund Commissioner vide a letter dated 16. 4. 2004 required the petitioner to submit his documents regarding Provident Fund, etc. The petitioner replied vide letter dated 26. 4. 2004 stating therein that there was no need to file any document in view of the provisions of Section 10 (1) of the Act. The respondents/school, on the other hand, vide a letter dated 29. 4. 2004 declined the request for pension and further stated that the request was contrary to applicable rules, law and service agreement dated 10. 5. 1978. The petitioner repudiated the stand of the respondents vide his letter dated 12. 5. 2004 and made another request vide his letters dated 5. 7. 2004 and 17. 7. 2004. The petitioner says that the service agreement of 10. 5. 1978 was violative of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Mr. B. Das, it is pointed out by the petitioner, had refused to sign the service agreement. The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31. 8. 2004 and thereafter mad