Delhi High Court: A batch of letters patent appeals were filed challenging the judgment dated 17-11-2023, passed by the Single Judge, by the teachers and employees of various recognised private unaided schools in Delhi claiming for payment of salary as per the 6th and 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) which is being paid to schools run by the appropriate authorities along with certain ancillary prayers such as promotion and payment of retirement benefits as per 6th and 7thCPC. A Division Bench of Subramonium Prasad, and Vimal Kumar Yadav, JJ., set aside a common judgment of a Single Judge which had directed the constitution of government-led committees to determine teachers’ pay arrears, fee revisions and implementation of the 6th and 7th Central Pay Commissions (CPCs).
Thus, the Court held that such committees could not exercise judicial functions, as adjudication of parties’ rights under Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (‘DSE Act’) falls within the domain of the Court itself. The appeals were consequently remanded to the Single Judge for fresh consideration, with all issues left open.
The case originated in a group of over fifty writ petitions filed by teaching and non-teaching staff employed in various recognised private unaided schools across Delhi seeking parity of pay, allowances, and service benefits with teachers serving in government-run schools under Section 10 of the DSE Act, which mandates that employees of recognised private schools shall not receive less favourable terms and conditions of service than their counterparts in schools run by the appropriate authority. They also sought implementation of the 6th and 7th CPC pay revisions, along with arrears, interest, and terminal benefits such as gratuity and leave encashment.
Before the Single Judge, the Directorate of Education supported the teachers’ stand, affirming that private schools were under a statutory duty to implement the Central Pay Commission revisions. The schools, however, resisted the petitions, contending that several claims were barred by delay and laches, that many petitioners were ineligible or irregularly appointed, and that in the absence of fee-hike permissions from the Directorate of Education, they lacked the financial capacity to bear the additional burden. They also argued that arrears, if any, should be restricted to three years preceding the filing of the petitions.
After hearing the parties, the Single Judge framed common issues concerning the applicability of the 6th and 7th CPCs to recognised private unaided schools, the mandatory nature of Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, the effect of delay and laches, and whether financial constraints could excuse non-implementation.
By judgment dated 17-11-2023, the Single Judge held that Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act was mandatory and left no discretion to the schools: teachers and staff of recognised private schools were entitled to pay and allowances at par with government school employees. The Court further ruled that paucity of funds could not be pleaded to deny statutory entitlements and that the doctrine of laches was inapplicable to claims rooted in statutory rights. Having so concluded, however, the Single Judge refrained from granting direct monetary relief and instead constituted two High-Powered Committees, one at the zonal level headed by the Zonal Education Officer and another at the central level chaired by the Secretary (Education) to decide issues of fee hike, salary computation under the 6th and 7th CPCs, verification of eligibility and appointments, and calculation of arrears and terminal benefits.
The timelines were set for the committees to convene, examine records, and decide claims, and the Directorate of Education was directed to notify the zonal committees within two weeks. The teachers aggrieved by non-implementation were to approach these committees for redress.
Both sides felt aggrieved. The teachers appealed, arguing that once the Single Judge had upheld their entitlement under Section 10, their claims should not have been delegated to committees lacking judicial authority. The schools filed cross-appeals, asserting that the Single Judge had ignored their right to fix fees recognised under Sections 17 and 18 of the Delhi School Education Act and by the Supreme Court, and had failed to address pending proceedings before other benches concerning fee regulation.
The Court noted that the principal issue before it was whether the Single Judge could validly constitute committees empowered to decide fee-hike requests, compute arrears, and determine teachers’ entitlements, and judicial functions in nature. The Court observed that while a High Court exercising writ jurisdiction may constitute expert or fact-finding committees to assist in adjudication, such bodies cannot replace the court in deciding the substantive rights and obligations of the parties.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust v. State of Gujarat, (2023) 13 SCC 525, the Court reiterated that the role of court-appointed committees is limited to providing expert inputs or factual verification to enable judicial decision-making. Judicial power cannot be delegated to administrative or executive committees. The Bench also emphasised the distinction between ministerial acts (such as collecting or verifying documents) and judicial acts (which involve determination of rights). Thus, delegating the latter is impermissible.
The Court observed that the committees constituted by the Single Judge were vested with adjudicatory powers such as examining eligibility, deciding on pay-scale entitlements, and resolving disputes between teachers and schools. These were not mere administrative tasks but judicial determinations, which could not be outsourced. Furthermore, the Court noted that the committees, as structured, had representation from the schools but none from teachers or employees, further reinforcing the imbalance in the process.
The Court also took note of the schools’ contention that critical aspects including teachers’ eligibility for CPC benefits, validity of appointments, and schools’ statutory right to revise fees had not been addressed by the Single Judge. These issues, the Court said, merited judicial consideration and could not be left to administrative committees.
Allowing the appeals, the Court set aside the Single Judge’s judgment to the extent that it constituted zonal and central committees to adjudicate teachers’ claims. The Court held that the constitution of such committees amounted to an impermissible delegation of judicial functions. It remitted the entire batch of writ petitions to the roster of Single Judge for fresh adjudication on all issues both factual and legal arising between the parties.
The Court made it clear that it was expressing no opinion on the merits of the controversy—whether Section 10 of the DSE Act is mandatory, whether private unaided or minority schools are bound by the CPCs, or whether delay and financial incapacity can limit reliefs. All contentions of the parties were kept open for determination afresh.
The appeals and pending applications were accordingly disposed of.
[Renu Arora v. St Margaret Senior Secondary School, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 7137, decided on 10-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant(s): Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Anuj Agarwal, Mr. Kumar Utkarsh and Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates in Item Nos.10, 12 to 19, 28, 30, 31, 36 to 39, 41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,52,53.
Mr. Nikhilesh Kumar and Mr. Pratyaksh Kumar, Advocates in Item Nos.20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 33. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Ms. Kritika Matta and Mr. Manas Verma, Advocates in Item Nos. 32, 34, 35 & 40.
Mr. Kamal Mehta, Advocate for Appellant No.6 in Item No.24.
Mr. Yeeshu Jain ASC with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Ms. Arpita Goyal, Ms. Vishruti Pandey and Mr. Bhuwan Raj Seth, Advocates for Appellant-DoE in Item No.29.
Mr. Kamal Gupta, Ms. Tripti Gupta, Mr. Sparsh Aggarwal, Ms. Madhulika Singh, Ms. Sabrina Singh, Advocates in Item Nos. 62, 58, 60, 56, 54, 57, 59, 61.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Romy Chacko, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sachin Singh Dalal and Mr. Ashwin Romy, Advocates in Item No.28, 32, 39, 55.
Mr. Ankur Mittal and Ms. Jutirani Talukdar, Advocates in Item No.34. Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advocates in Item Nos.51, 52, 53.
Mr. Kamal Gupta, Ms. Tripti Gupta, Mr. Sparsh Aggarwal, Ms. Madhulika Singh, Ms. Sabrina Singh, Advocates for Respondent Schools in Item Nos. 10, 12, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22.
Mr. Yeeshu Jain ASC with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Ms. Arpita Goyal, Ms. Vishruti Pandey and Mr. Bhuwan Raj Seth, Advocates for Respondent-DoE in Item Nos. 10, 33.
Mr. Prakhar Sharma, Ms. Piya Uppal, Ms. Riya Verma and Mr. Ayush Malik, Advocates in Item Nos. 13 & 14.
Mr. Samdarshi Sanjay and Ashish Kumar Sharma, Advocates for R-1 and R-2 in Item No.24 & 29. Mr. Pulkit Tare and Ms. Parul Madaan, Advocates for R-1 in Item Nos. 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43. Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC for GNCTD (Services), Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms Aliza Alam, Mr Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates in Item No.51.
Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar Utkarsh, and Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates for R-1 in Item Nos.54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 62.