The court balanced the financial hardship faced by the school with the petitioners' claim for interest, ultimately deciding against granting further interest to maintain equity.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J.

CM APPL. 39739/2022 (u/S 151 CPC)

1. The present application has been preferred by the petitioners prying for award of interest @12% per annum from the due date on account of delayed payment of arrears paid by respondents No.3 & 4 as well as award for exemplary costs.

2. For just disposal of the present application, the facts pertaining to this case in brief are noted in the following paragraphs.

3. The petitioners, who are 220 in number, filed the captioned petition inter alia seeking implementation of recommendations of the Seventh Central Pay Commission ("7th CPC") in the light of provisions of Section 10 of Delhi School Education Act, 1973, which mandates that the scale of pay and allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity and other prescribed benefits of all the employees of a private unaided recognized schools, shall not be less than that of the employees of the corresponding status in the schools run by the appropriate authority.

4. Some of the petitioners vide communication dated 27.07.2009 to respondent No.3- Sanskriti School, claim to have objected to their pay fixation pursuant to revision of pay structure consequent upon recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission ("6th CPC"). Consequent upon acceptance of recommendations of 7th CPC, respondent No.1- Government of NCT of Delhi issued orders to the school for adoption of Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules 2016 and to implement 7th CPC in respect of all its employees. Vide letter dated 02.02.2017, the staff of respondent No.3-Sanskriti School requested its Chairperson to implement the 7th CPC, who in turn had informed the staff on 28.02.2017 that the school had reserves to pay arrears of 7th CPC till December, 2016 and to increase and refix their pay, 27% fee hike is required, however, respondent No.2- Directorate of Education (DoE) was not accepting fee hike. To refute the claim of Chairperson of the School, the staff informed that like other schools, increase by only 14.29% is required, which was answered by the respondent No.3-School by stating that if the arrears of pay are paid, then the school will be liable to pay the revised salary, which could not be done. Various rounds of communications took place between the staff and school. On 25.08.2017, respondent No.2-DoE directed all unaided private schools to implement Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules 2016 in respect of all regular employees and the corresponding status in their Schools. The Executive Committee of respondent- School announced payment of the revised salary w.e.f. 01.09.2017, however, did not pay the arrears of salary.

5. Subsequently, vide e-mail dated 28.09.2017, the respondent No.3- School, in the light of Independent Auditor's report dated 25.09.2017, recorded approval of implementation 7th CPC and arrears were decided to be released w.e.f., 01.01.2016, upon approval of fee hike by the DoE. Pursuant to order dated 17.10.2017 passed by DoE, whereby unaided recognised schools were permitted to hike the tuition fees in absence of any funds available with the school, after presenting financial statement indicating income and expenditure of each account before the Managing Committee of the school, the Management Committee of the respondent No.3-School recommended hike in school fee from January, 2018. The Management Committee of the respondent No.3-School also declared that the increased salaries to the staff, inclusive of HRA, TA etc. shall be payable from December, 2017. Thereafter, petitioners and such like staff members, made various representations to respondent No.3-School seeking refixation of salary by implementing 7th CPC in 2017, 2018 and 2019. However, since no relief was granted to petitioners, the present petition was filed in April, 2019.

6. The respondents in their counter affidavit took the stand that respondent No.3-School was facing financial crunch due to insufficient funds, which was disputed by petitioners. Vide order d