Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. The appeal impugns the order dated 26.09.2011 of the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) 8297/2009 preferred by the appellant with costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Bar Association Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund.

2. The writ petition was filed by the appellant pleading, that he is a Air Force pensioner, now practicing as an Advocate in Delhi; that his three children have been studying in the respondent School and of which two have now passed out from the respondent School and one is still studying; that the respondent School is an aided School within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 and receives aid from the Central Government by way of full time / part time deployment of personnel paid from the Consolidated Fund of India as also by way of government land on which the School is situated; that thus the fee and other charges which got levied by the respondent School are subject to prescription and Regulations under Section 17 of the Act; that the respondent School is also required to provide fee concession according to the Policy of the Indian Air Force. The writ petition impugned the fee hike effected by the respondent School for implementation of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission. It is the contention of the appellant that the said fee hike is in violation of Section 17 of the DSE Act. The writ petition also averred violation by the respondent School of Rules 157, 158 and 159 of the Rules providing for concession to be granted to brothers and sisters being in the same School. The petition further averred the respondent School to have wrongly relied upon Notification dated 11.02.2009 intended only for unaided schools. The writ petition thus sought the relief of quashing of Circular dated 17.03.2009 of the respondent School enhancing the Tuition Fee and further sought a direction to the respondent School to regard the appellant's children as children of Air Force Personnel and not in the non Air Force category and to allow them concession under the Rules aforesaid. The appellant also sought refund of the excess fee / charges extracted by the respondent School from the appellant.

3. The learned Single Judge has vide judgment impugned in this appeal held:

(i) That as far as the aspect of fee hike was concerned, the same was subject matter of W.P.(C) No. 7777/2009 before the Division Bench and vide orders wherein, a Committee headed by a former Judge of this Court had been constituted to go into the question of fee hike by recognized schools of Delhi.

(ii) The claim of the appellant for 20% concession in fee on account of being a retired Air Force personnel was dismissed upon finding that with effect from 01.04.2004 such concession was withdrawn to the children of prematurely retired Air Force personnel and the said decision had been uniformly applied in the case of all the wards of prematurely retired Air Force personnel. It was further held that the appellant had been unable to show that any children of prematurely retired Air Force personnel, similarly situated as him / his children, were being given the said concession after 01.04.2004.

4. The appellant, on the aspect of fee hike, has contended that the Committee which has been constituted vide order in W.P.(C) No. 7777/2009 is in relation to unaided schools while the respondent School is an aided School. Though it is the unrebutted plea of the respondent School that the respondent School is also a party to W.P.(C) No. 7777/2009 and is participating in the proceedings before the Committee constituted vide order therein and one of us (Hon?ble the Acting Chief Justice) being a member of the Bench which had passed order in W.P.(C) No. 7777/2009 is also able to recollect the respondent School being a party to that writ petition, but we have nevertheless heard the counsels on the aspect of respondent School being an aided School.