2022/DHC/004536

LPA 541/2018 Page 1 of 9

$~6

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

LPA 541/2018

VIDYA BHARATI SCHOOL

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Atul Bandhu, Mr. Saurabh

Aggarwal and Mr. Kumara Guru,

Advocates.

versus

DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ORS ..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC for

GNCTD.

Mr. K.P. Gupta, Advocate for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

NAJMI WAZIRI, J (ORAL)

The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and

virtual hearing).

1.This appeal impugns the order dated 25.07.2018 passed in W.P.(C)

7700/2018, which has dismissed the appellant’s writ petition, in which

it had impugned the directions issued by the Directorate of Education

(‘DOE’), GNCTD, requiring the school to pay arrears of salaries of

employees in terms of the 6^th Pay Commission.

2.The school had raised two contentions, one of them being that the

directions of the DOE were not applicable to it because the school

Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH

KUMAR

Signing Date:31.10.2022

18:29:57

Signature Not Verified

2022/DHC/004536

LPA 541/2018 Page 2 of 9

teachers at a staff meeting had agreed to forgo their arrears of

enhanced pay. Therefore, the same could not be sought by any of the

teachers; all the more because the school had not enhanced its fees nor

collected the same for paying the enhanced salaries. The school

claimed that it did not have the financial wherewithal to pay the

arrears. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Staff

Committee had duly understood and appreciated the school’s financial

incapacity and they had, therefore, agreed to forego enhanced salaries

for all times. This contention was rejected by the DOE and rightly so,

on the ground that there could not be a waiver of statutory rights of

the teachers by way of a private agreement. This is in breach of

section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, and militates

against the public policy of payment of due remuneration, as fixed by

the Government from time to time. Such waiver if allowed would

subvert the larger public good and render school teachers virtually at

the mercy of schools, who may well compel them to discharge their

duties at a lesser salary at the threat of being dismissed from service.

The DOE’s rationale for rejecting the school’s contention is recorded

in its order dated 10.10.2016. The relevant portions are reproduced

hereunder:

“...

Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH

KUMAR

Signing Date:31.10.2022

18:29:57

Signature Not Verified

2022/DHC/004536

LPA 541/2018 Page 3 of 9

Authority.”

3.The impugned order holds that the school was liable to pay the arrears

in terms of pay fixation dated 11.02.2009 and the school was bound to

follow the mandatory directions; we see no reason to disagree with the

impugned order because a private agreement cannot subvert inflation

related ameliorative statutory mandate of enhanced salary to

employees to whom the 6^th Pay Commission Recommendations

extend. There cannot be an estoppel against statutory compliance.

4.The second contention of the school was that the petition was filed in

Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH

KUMAR

Signing Date:31.10.2022

18:29:57

Signature Not Verified

2022/DHC/004536

LPA 541/2018 Page 4 of 9

2018, therefore, the arrears of pay could only relate back to three

years therefrom. Referring to the dicta of the Supreme Court in State

of Orissa and another vs. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436, the

appellant