Recognized private schools, including unaided minority institutions, are statutorily obligated to implement pay scales as per the 6th and 7th Pay Commission recommendations, ensuring parity with government schools.

JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the Petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

“i. issue of writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions directing the Respondents no. 1 to 8 to fix the pay scale of the Petitioners as per the guidelines of 6th Pay Commission and release the arrears of 6th pay commission alongwith the Transport allowance (T.A.) for the period September 2008 to December 2015 and arrears of Transport Allowance and Dearness Allowance (D.A) as applicable along with interest@ 15% p.a.,

ii. issue of writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions directing the Respondents no. 1 to 8 directing the Respondents to implement 7th Pay Commission and after the fixation of pay scale in accordance with the 7th Pay Commission, release the arrears of 7th pay commission in accordance with the recommendations and guidelines of the 7th pay commission along with interest@ 10% p.a.;

iii. issue of writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions directing the Respondents no. 1 to 3 to release the arrears of salary ie. 40% of the salary which have not been released till date for the period April 2020 to February 2021 alongwith payslips and release transport allowance (T.A.) for the period June 2020 till the filing of the present petition and arrears of applicable Dearness Allowance;

iv. Pass an order directing the Respondents no. l to 8 to pay/release the salaries in full (inclusive of T.A. and D.A.) to the petitioners on or before 7th day of every calendar months”

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that Petitioners are serving employees of Guru Harkishan Public School and seek revision of their pay and allowances in terms of recommendations of the 6th and 7th CPC along with balance salaries unpaid till date as well as allowances such as Travelling Allowance (TA) and Dearness Allowance (DA). It is argued that the cases of the Petitioners are squarely covered by the judgments of this Court in Kuttamparampath Sudha Nair v. Managing Committee Sri Sathya Sai Vidya Vihar and Another, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2511 and Shikha Sharma v. Guru Harkrishan Public School and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5011 , which have been subsequently followed in several other cases by several Benches of this Court and orders have been upheld by the Division Benches. It is further urged that it is the statutory obligation of the School to implement recommendations of Central Pay Commissions and yet there is total inaction and this is despite the fact that the Directorate of Education (DoE) has issued Circulars from time to time directing all recognised private schools to implement Pay Commissions’ recommendations.

3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel representing the School is unable to dispute that the cases of the Petitioners are covered on all four corners by the judgments of this Court in Kuttamparampath Sudha Nair (supra) and Shikha Sharma (supra). He, however, submits that insofar as the benefits of 7th CPC are concerned, a Co-ordinate Bench is dealing with the issue in a batch of contempt petitions and modalities are being worked out to release the same.

4. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, this Court finds merit in the contention of the Petitioners that the reliefs sought in the present writ petition are covered by the judgments in Kuttamparampath Sudha Nair (supra) and Shikha Sharma (supra). Relevant passages from Kuttamparampath Sudha Nair (supra) are as follows:

“20. The issue of applicability of Section 10(1) and other provisions of Chapter IV of the DSEA &R to unaided minority schools came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Frank Anthony (supra) and the Supreme Court set aside the pre-existing Section 12, which had excluded the application of Section 10(1