$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5181/2019 SHRI SURENDER KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Bhuvneshwar Tyagi, Advocate.

Versus MAHARAJA AGARSAIN PUBLIC SCHOOL (RECOGNIZED)

AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kamal Gupta, MINR Tripti Gupta, Mr. Sparsh Aggarwal, Mr.

Siddharth Arora, Advocates for R-1.

Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Ms. Prajna Pandita, Advocates for R-

2/DoE.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 04.02.2026

1. The Petitioner asserts that he was appointed as a PGT (Chemistry) with Respondent No. 1 School and joined duties on 04^th July, 2011. It is the Petitioner’s case that he successfully completed probation and continued in service in the same capacity; however, no formal confirmation letter was issued. In support, he relies upon the staff details for the academic year 2011–2012 prepared by Respondent No. 1, which records his date of joining as 04^th July, 2011.

2. The Petitioner states that he was initially paid a salary of INR 16,000/- per month and that his last drawn salary in March 2017 was INR

23,500/- per month. He contends that the Respondent School was statutorily obliged to pay him in accordance with the pay scales mandated under Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973,, “DSEA” including implementation of the 6^th CPC. As a PGT teacher, he was entitled to the pay scale of INR 9,300-34,800 with grade pay of INR 4,800, along with admissible allowances such as HRA, TA and DA, and thereafter to revised emoluments under the 7^th CPC.

3. He alleges that the school did not pay salaries to its teaching and non- teaching staff in accordance with the statutory mandate and that salary payments to him were made in cash. The Petitioner states that he continued to serve the school for more than five years despite the alleged non-

compliance.

4. It is further contended that he was unlawfully removed from service in the month of April, 2017 without issuing of any notice. The Petitioner relies on the report of the committee headed by Justice Anil Dev Singh (Retd.), constituted pursuant to directions of this Court to examine complaints relating to fee collection and pay commission compliance by recognized private schools. The committee reported irregularities in implementation of the 6^th CPC in several schools, including Respondent No. 1. Based on its interim findings, the Directorate of Education issued an order dated 01^st July, 2016 directing the concerned schools to implement the 6th CPC and release arrears.

5. The Petitioner states that he thereafter made representations to Respondents No. 1 and 2 seeking implementation of the prescribed pay scales and payment of arrears in terms of the aforesaid order dated 01^st July,

2016. However, no corrective action was taken. It is therefore argued that the Respondents have violated the Delhi School Education Act and Rules and that a writ of mandamus ought to issue directing payment of arrears and salary in accordance with the statutory pay scales and the DoE order.

6. On the other hand, Respondent No. 1 School contends that the Petitioner’s engagement was purely contractual and continued only up to the year 2015, after which he stopped reporting for duty of his own accord. It is asserted that all dues payable to the Petitioner stood settled and that there was no termination of service. According to the school, the Petitioner voluntarily discontinued his engagement and the allegation of oral removal in April 2017 is denied.

7. The school further denies the allegation that salary payments were made only in cash and disputes all allegations of statutory non-compliance. With regard to entitlement under the 6^th CPC and the order dated 01^st July, 2016, it is contended that since the Petitioner had already ceased to work in 2015, he cannot claim any benefit under the said order. Therefore, no arrears on account of non-implementation of the 6^th CPC are payable to the Petitioner.

8. Without prejudice to the above, Respondent No. 1 submits that the petition r