Private school employees are entitled to salaries and benefits under the 6th and 7th CPC as mandated by the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, and coercion faced by employees to waive their rights is illegitimate.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"a) Direct the respondent no. 1 & 2 to disburse the lawful arrears of salary along with the arrear of gratuity, as computed in the annexed calculation sheet with interest @12% P.A. to the petitioners as in Annexures P/2 (colly), P/3 (colly), P/4 (colly), P/5 (Colly) & P/6 (Colly).

b) allow the writ petition with cost;

c) or pass any other order of further orders this Hon'ble court be fit on the basis of above-mentioned facts and circumstances of the case."

2. The petitioners are teachers by profession and had been working as Trained Graduate Teachers (`TGT' hereinafter) with the respondent No. 1 school (`respondent School' hereinafter) since 1995. The petitioner Nos. 1-3 got superannuated at different times between 2018-2020, the petitioner No. 4 was suspended from the services on ground of misconduct and the petitioner No. 5 is still employed with the respondent School.

3. The respondent School was established and is being run by the respondent No. 2 society (`respondent Society' hereinafter) as recognized by the respondent No. 3, the Directorate of Education (`respondent Directorate' hereinafter) under the provisions of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (`the DSEAR' hereinafter) read with the Rules provided thereunder.

4. After the implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission (`CPC' hereinafter), the teachers employed in private unaided recognized schools got eligible for the MACP and the revised pay scales by virtue of Section 10(1) of the DSEAR.

5. In 2017, the Delhi Government adopted the 7th CPC and ordered all the private schools to implement the same w.e.f. 1st January, 2016, but the respondent School did not implement the recommendations of the CPC and defied the payments in that regard as well.

6. Aggrieved by the non-implementation of the 7th CPC and non- payment of the arrears of 6th CPC, the petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition before this Court.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the respondent School has deliberately failed to pay the lawful salary and other entitlements as guaranteed to the petitioners under Section 10(1) of the DSEAR.

8. It is submitted that the respondent School albeit well aware of the entitlement of the petitioners did not implement the recommendations of the 6th and 7th CPC and has been paying unlawful salaries to the petitioners as per its whims and fancies.

9. It is submitted that the petitioners were forced to sign the undertaking by the respondent School, to not seek lawful salary for the period of 1st January 2006 to 31st August 2008 and the same cannot be treated as waiver in law. It is further submitted that even though the respondent School has now disbursed the arrears, there is a difference of more than Rs.5,000/- per month of the salary as alleged to be calculated by the respondent School from the actual entitlement of the petitioners.

10. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks that this Court allow the present Writ Petition and direct the respondent School to disburse the actual salaries and arrears as statutorily mandated by the Government on the recommendation of the 6th and 7th CPC.

11. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent School and respondent Management vehemently opposed the Writ Petition and denied the averments made by the petitioners.

12. It is submitted that after superannuation, the petitioners No. 1 to 3 have been paid the gratuity and other retirement benefits in a timely manner. However, petitioner No. 4 is not entitled to gratuity and other retirement benefits due to gross misconduct committed while working at the respondent School. Petitioner No. 4 was dismissed from service after the charges were proven against him by the inquiry committee. It is submi