The main legal point established in the judgment is that a private agreement cannot subvert statutory rights of teachers, and that the public policy of fair remuneration for teachers and employees prevails over individual agreements.

JUDGMENT

Najmi Waziri, J. (Oral)

The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).

1. This appeal impugns the order dated 25.07.2018 passed in W.P.(C) 7700/2018, which has dismissed the appellant's writ petition, in which it had impugned the directions issued by the Directorate of Education (`DOE'), GNCTD, requiring the school to pay arrears of salaries of employees in terms of the 6th Pay Commission.

2. The school had raised two contentions, one of them being that the directions of the DOE were not applicable to it because the school teachers at a staff meeting had agreed to forgo their arrears of enhanced pay. Therefore, the same could not be sought by any of the teachers; all the more because the school had not enhanced its fees nor collected the same for paying the enhanced salaries. The school claimed that it did not have the financial wherewithal to pay the arrears. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Staff Committee had duly understood and appreciated the school's financial incapacity and they had, therefore, agreed to forego enhanced salaries for all times. This contention was rejected by the DOE and rightly so, on the ground that there could not be a waiver of statutory rights of the teachers by way of a private agreement. This is in breach of section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, and militates against the public policy of payment of due remuneration, as fixed by the Government from time to time. Such waiver if allowed would subvert the larger public good and render school teachers virtually at the mercy of schools, who may well compel them to discharge their duties at a lesser salary at the threat of being dismissed from service. The DOE's rationale for rejecting the school's contention is recorded in its order dated 10.10.2016. The relevant portions are reproduced hereunder:

"...

And whereas, as per the advise of Law Department, the Accounts functionaries of DoE thus calculated that a sum of Rs. 3,71,598/- (Rupees Three Lakh Seventy one Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Eight only) is payable to the petitioner by the Respondent No.1 School, on account of fixation of salary-arrears as per recommendations of Sixth Pay Commission Report (Calculation Sheet Attached) w.e.f. 01/01/2016.

And whereas, the claim of the Respondent No.1 to 3 that the petitioner agreed to forego the arrears keeping in mind the benefits of the school vide Staff Committee meeting minutes dated 18/03/2009 is not tenable for the reason that the agreement to forego the statutory right to have equal pay scales as that of teachers of government schools has no legal force. And thus concerned school is duty bound to follow section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act & Rule, 1973.

Now therefore, in compliance of order of Hon'ble High Court in above cited case Respondent No. 1, Vidya Bharti School, is hereby directed to pay Rs. 3,71,598/- (Rupees Three Lakh Seventy one Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Eight only) within one week of receipt of this order, to the Petitioner, Shri Anil Kumar Ahuja, PGT (Maths).

This order disposes of the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) 11800 of 2015 titled as Anil Kumar Ahuja Vs Vidya Bharti School & Ors..

This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority."

3. The impugned order holds that the school was liable to pay the arrears in terms of pay fixation dated 11.02.2009 and the school was bound to follow the mandatory directions; we see no reason to disagree with the impugned order because a private agreement cannot subvert inflation related ameliorative statutory mandate of enhanced salary to employees to whom the 6th Pay Commission Recommendations extend. There cannot be an estoppel against statutory compliance.

4. The second contention of the school was that the petition was filed in 2018, therefore, the arrears of pay could only relate back to three years therefrom. Referring to the dicta of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa a