Back
2026 Supreme(Del) 434
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, C.J., Tejas Karia, J.
Sangeeta Negi- Appellant
Versus
Bharti Public School & Ors. - Respondents
LPA 589 of 2025
Decided On : 04-06-2026
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sermon Rawat and Ms. Aastha Vishwakarma, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. B.C. Pandey, Mr. S.P. Kamrah, Mr. Puneet Batra and Mr. Aryavansh Kamrah, Advocates, Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Ms. Vishruti Pandey, Mr. Sachin Garg, Advocates
Employees of recognized unaided private schools are entitled to the same leave benefits, including Child Care Leave, as their counterparts in government schools, pursuant to the legislative mandate of service parity under the relevant educational statutes and rules governing leave of absence.
Headnote:(A) Education Law - Service conditions - Leave of absence - Parity between recognized unaided private school employees and government school employees - Employees of recognized unaided private institutions are entitled to Child Care Leave equivalent to government counterparts. Rule regarding leave of absence mandates that private school employees receive benefits matching their counterparts in government services. (Paras 9, 13)
(B) Service Jurisprudence - Interpretation of "other prescribed benefits" - The expression includes all leave entitlements, regardless of their monetary character. Restrictive interpretations limiting benefits to those with monetary value are inapplicable when statutory provisions mandate absolute parity in leave entitlements. (Paras 20, 26)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a teacher in a recognized but unaided private educational institution, sought Child Care Leave for the benefit of her child's educational needs. The claim was denied by the school, and the subsequent writ petition was dismissed by the lower court, which relied on existing judicial precedents that limited the scope of parity in benefits.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the lower court erred by narrowly interpreting the statutory requirement for parity. It held that the legislation governing service conditions for recognized schools requires that leave benefits, which serve both statutory and welfare purposes, must be granted equally to employees regardless of whether they have a monetary nature.
Issues: The primary issue was whether an employee of a recognized unaided private school is entitled to the same leave benefits, specifically Child Care Leave, as employees in government-run schools under the prevailing educational regulatory framework.
Ratio Decidendi: Pursuant to the statutory mandate ensuring service parity, employees of recognized private institutions are entitled to leave benefits equivalent to those in government schools. Since Child Care Leave is a recognized benefit for government employees that serves essential family and societal interests, it cannot be denied to private school staff, as the rule governing leave of absence does not distinguish between monetary and non-monetary benefits.
Result: Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. entitlement of private school employees to child care leave (ccl). (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. statutory framework governing service conditions and leave for recognized private schools under dse act and rules 1973. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 3. application of rule 111 of dse rules regarding parity of leave benefits between government and private schools. (Para 10) |
| 4. interpretation of 'prescribed benefits' and applicability of ccl to private unaided school teachers regardless of salary-linked character. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. ccl as a social welfare measure linked to article 21 rights. (Para 27) |
| 6. order allowing the appeal and directing reconsideration of ccl application. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J.
1. As to whether, the petitioner who is a teacher working with the respondent-School, which is a recognized but un-aided and privately managed, is entitled to the benefit of Child Care Leave (hereinafter referred to as „CCL’) is the question which engages our attention in this intra-court appeal.
2. The appellant instituted W.P.(C) 11903/2025, with a prayer to issue a direction to the respondent-School to grant her CCL for the period between 01.05.2025 to 30.09.2025 on the ground that her son who was in Class XII was facing certain academic pressure. The writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 08.08.2025 relying upon a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Beena Arora v. Directorate of Education , 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7600. We may note at this juncture itself that the learned Single Judge in Beena Arora (supra) has placed reliance on M.I. Hussain v. Director of Education , 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1226, a Division Bench of this Court.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records available before us on this intra-court appeal.
4. Terms and conditions of service of employees of recognised private schools are governed by the provisions contained in Chapter IV of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as „DSE Act).
5. The term “Employee” has been defined in Section 2(h) of the DSE Act to mean a teacher and includes every other employee working in a recognised school. Section 2(h) is reproduced here under:
(h) “employee” means a teacher and includes every other employee working in a recognised school;”
6. Section 10 of DSE Act, which falls in its Chapter IV, is in respect of salaries of the employees, wherein, it has inter alia been provided that pay scale, allowances, medical facilities, pension, provident fund, gratuity and “other prescribed benefits” of the employees working in a recognised private school shall not be less than those employees of the corresponding status in schools run by the appropriate authority. Section 10 of the DSE Act reads as under:
“10. Salaries of employees.—(1) The scales of pay and allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and other prescribed benefits of the employees of a recognised private school shall not be less than those of the employees of the corresponding status in schools run by the appropriate authority:
Provided that where the scales of pay and allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and other prescribed benefits of the employees of any recognised private school are less than those of the employees of the corresponding status in the schools run by the appropriate authority, the appropriate authority shall direct, in writing, the managing committee of such school to bring the same up to the level of those of the employees of the corresponding status in schools run by the appropriate authority:
Provided further that the failure to comply with such direction shall be deemed to be non-compliance with the conditions for continuing recognition of an existing school and the provisions of section 4 shall apply accordingly.
(2) The managing committee
