$~37

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 14351/2022

RENU MENDIRATTA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. S.M. Srivastava & Mr. Aniket

Kotnala, Advocates.

versus

DELHI CONVENT SCHOOL & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC, Ms. Jyoti

Tyagi, Ms. Vishruti Pandey, Mr.

Sachin Garg, Advocates.

Mr. Sachin Rai & Mr. Anshuman

Gupta, Advocates for R-1 to 3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 14.01.2026

1. This writ petition, inter alia, seeks a direction to the Respondents to release full back wages to the Petitioner, calculated on the basis of her last drawn salary, for a period of three years and three months, i.e., from 1^st

April, 2014 to 16^th August, 2017.

2. The Petitioner was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher, “TGT” with Delhi Convent School/Respondent No. 2 in the year 1996. Subsequently, she was placed under suspension by communication dated 4^th April, 2014, which ultimately culminated in the termination of her services by order dated 18^th

May, 2015, with retrospective effect from 4^th April, 2014.

3. Aggrieved by the said termination, the Petitioner preferred an appeal

before the Delhi School Tribunal., “DST” This appeal was allowed by order dated 7^th July, 2017, whereby her termination was declared illegal and the Respondent School was directed to reinstate her within a period of one month. It was further held that the Petitioner would be entitled to full wages from the date of the said order along with all consequential benefits. Insofar as the claim for back wages was concerned, the Petitioner was directed to submit a representation under Rule 121 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, which representation was directed to be decided within a period of four weeks by passing a speaking order.

4. In compliance with the aforesaid directions, the Petitioner submitted a representation to the Respondent School on 5^th August, 2017. The Respondent School accepted the order passed by the DST and, accordingly, issued an order dated 10^th August, 2017, reinstating the Petitioner with effect from 16^th August, 2017. However, notwithstanding the said representation, no order was passed by the Respondent School with respect to the Petitioner’s claim for back wages.

5. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an execution petition before the DST seeking recovery of her dues amounting to ₹10,49,797/-, pertaining to the period from the date of her suspension till the date of her reinstatement. However, this petition was dismissed by the DST by order dated 30^th October, 2018, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to grant back wages, payment of subsistence allowance, medical leave, reimbursement, and other allied reliefs.

6. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed the instant petition, seeking the following reliefs:

“a) Pass an order/direction to direct the respondents/School to pay the full back-wages of the petitioner as per her last drawn salary for the period of 3 years, 3 months from 01.04.2014 to 16.08.2017 and;

b) Pass an order/directions to the Respondent no 1 to 3 to refund the 34% deduction out of salary by the name of 'voluntary deduction', and declare it as illegal since such deduction is possible only under minor penalty proceeding under rule 117,a (ii), which had neither been initiated nor happened ever and;

c) Pass an order/ directions to direct the respondent no. 1 to 3 to permit the petitioner to collect its personal belonging lying in the Almirah in School in school”

7. The Respondent School has filed their counter-affidavit, wherein the allegations levelled by the Petitioner have been denied. It is averred that several complaints were received against the Petitioner alleging infliction of corporal punishment upon students, and the Petitioner was issued warnings in this regard, to which she tendered an apology. The Respondent School has further asserted that all applicable rules and regulations were duly followed; the Petitioner was placed under suspension after due process; and that the Delhi Commission for Protection