The teachers' writ petition seeking implementation of the 7th CPC and the circular/order/notification dated 17th October, 2017 is maintainable under Section 10(1) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, and the cause of action being recurring, the writ petition is not barred by delay and/or laches.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 45446/2022

Keeping in view the averments in the application, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

LPA 601/2022 & CM APPL.45447/2022

1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 14th December, 2021, whereby the writ petition filed by three teachers seeking payment of 7th Central Pay Commission (hereinafter referred to as `7th CPC') has been allowed.

RELEVANT FACTS

2. The relevant facts are that respondents 1 to 3 have been working in the appellant school on regular basis. Pursuant to recommendations of the 7th CPC, respondent No.5/Directorate of Education (DOE) issued notification dated 17th October, 2017, whereby all the private recognized schools were asked to implement the same. Since the benefit of the 7th CPC was not extended by the appellant school, Respondents 1 to 3 approached this Court by filing a writ petition.

3. By the impugned judgment dated 14th December 2021, the learned Single Judge directed the school to grant benefits/salaries to respondents 1 to 3 herein, in terms of provisions of the 7th CPC and further held that they were entitled to arrears thereof w.e.f. 1st January 2016. Thus, the present appeal has come to be filed by the school.

ARGUMENTS BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-school submits that the appellant-school is not amenable to writ jurisdiction as it is an unaided private school. In support of his submission, he relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in St. Mary's Education Society and Another Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1091, wherein it has been held as under:

"36. It needs no elaboration to state that a school affiliated to CBSE which is unaided is not a State within Article 12 of the Constitution of India [see Satimbla Sharma v. St Paul's Senior Secondary School, (2011) 13 SCC 760: (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 75]. Nevertheless the school discharges a public duty of imparting education which is a fundamental right of the citizen [see K. Krishnamacharyulu v. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engg., (1997) 3 SCC 571: 1997 SCC (L&S) 841]. The school affiliated to CBSE is therefore an "authority" amenable to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India [see Binny Ltd. v. V. Sadasivan, (2005) 6 SCC 657: 2005 SCC (L&S) 881]. However, a judicial review of the action challenged by a party can be had by resort to the writ jurisdiction only if there is a public law element and not to enforce a contract of personal service. A contract of personal service includes all matters relating to the service of the employee-confirmation, suspension, transfer, termination, etc. [see Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. C.P. Sebastian, (2009) 14 SCC 360: (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 358: (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 359]."

5. He further states that even if the writ petition is held to be maintainable, no direction for payment of arrears thereof w.e.f. 1st January, 2016 could have been passed, inasmuch as, the petitioners had approached this Court by preferring the writ petition on 31st August, 2020. He submits that the claim for recovery of arrears beyond the period of three years is barred by law of limitation. In support of his submission, he relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others Vs. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, wherein it has been held as under:

"7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates