$~13 to 17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 24^th March, 2026 + CONT.CAS(C) 1365/2016 & CM APPLs. 22846/2017, 1962/2021 VISHWAJYOTI .....Petitioner Through: Dr. Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva and Mr. Arindam Gupta, Advocates.

versus VIRENDER KUMAR SARDANA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manish Gupta, Ms. Manaswee, Mr. Vivek Chandrasekar and Mr.

Jigyasa, Advocates for R-1.

Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Ms. Vishruti Pandey and Mr.

Sachin Garg, Advocates for DoE.

Mr. Hitendra Kr. M., Advocate for Delhi Arya Pratinidhi Sabhba.

+ W.P.(C) 7884/2019 & CM APPLs. 1177/2021, 1209/2021 ANJU RANI .....Petitioner Through: Dr. Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva and Mr. Arindam Gupta, Advocates.

versus DAYANAND ADARSH VIDYALAYA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Manish Gupta, Ms. Manaswee, Mr. Vivek Chandrasekar and Mr.

Jigyasa, Advocates for R-1.

Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Ms. Vishruti Pandey and Mr.

Sachin Garg, Advocates for DoE.

Mr. Hitendra Kr. M., Advocate for Delhi Arya Pratinidhi Sabhba.

+ W.P.(C) 5053/2020 & CM APPLs. 18234/2020, 9904/2021, 17558/2022, 50004/2024, 75400/2024 DEEPA CHHIBBER & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Asha Jain Madan and Mr.

Mukesh Jain, Advocates.

versus DAYANAND ADARSH VIDYALAYA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Manish Gupta, Ms. Manaswee, Mr. Vivek Chandrasekar and Mr.

Jigyasa, Advocates for R-1.

Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Ms. Vishruti Pandey and Mr.

Sachin Garg, Advocates for DoE.

Mr. Hitendra Kr. M., Advocate for Delhi Arya Pratinidhi Sabhba.

+ W.P.(C) 17353/2022 VISHWAJYOTI .....Petitioner Through: Dr. Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva and Mr. Arindam Gupta, Advocates.

versus DAYANAND ADARSH VIDYALAYA & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manish Gupta, Ms. Manaswee, Mr. Vivek Chandrasekar and Mr.

Jigyasa, Advocates for R-1.

Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Ms. Vishruti Pandey and Mr.

Sachin Garg, Advocates for DoE.

Mr. Hitendra Kr. M., Advocate for Delhi Arya Pratinidhi Sabhba.

+ W.P.(C) 227/2023 & CM APPLs. 21488/2023, 2831/2025 RAM ROOP SHARMA AND ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Asha Jain Madan and Mr.

Mukesh Jain, Advocates.

versus DAYANAND ADARSH VIDYALAYA AND ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Manish Gupta, Ms. Manaswee, Mr. Vivek Chandrasekar and Mr.

Jigyasa, Advocates for R-1.

Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Ms. Vishruti Pandey and Mr.

Sachin Garg, Advocates for DoE.

Mr. Hitendra Kr. M., Advocate for Delhi Arya Pratinidhi Sabhba.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):

1. These five matters are being disposed of by this common order. They arise out of the affairs of the same recognised private school, namely Dayanand Adarsh Vidyalaya, Tilak Nagar, and, though instituted by different Petitioners, raise substantially common questions. The core controversy in the batch concerns salary and service dues, and the legal effect of the school having stopped functioning from 1^st April, 2020 without any formal order of closure from the Directorate of Education. One of the matters is a contempt petition instituted by Vishwajyoti. The others are writ petitions by present or former members of the teaching and non-teaching staff. The overlap in facts, record, and issues is such that the matters are more appropriately decided together than in isolation. It is clarified that, for the sake of convenience, references to the parties by their respondent numbers are in terms of their array in W.P.(C) 5053/2020, and the same nomenclature is followed for all connected petitions.

Claims and controversy

2. There is no serious controversy on the limited point that salaries and retiral dues, if otherwise found payable, were obligations of the school. The real dispute begins when the school seeks to found legal consequences on what it describes as closure. According to the Petitioners, salaries were paid only up to 31^st March, 2020, and substantial arrears also remain due on account of implementation of the 7^th Central Pay Commission with effect from 1