Delhi High Court – Orders
Ruchi Sharma vs Ss Mota Singh Model Sr Sec School And Ors on 17 July, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7232/2022, CM APPL. 22117/2022 & CM APPL.
55491/2022
RUCHI SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate.
versus
SS MOTA SINGH MODEL SR SEC SCHOOL AND ORS
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Aranya Moulick, Ms. Namya
Rishi, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Yeeshu Jain ASC with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi and Mr. Sachin Garg,
Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 17.07.2026
1. The Petitioner is employed as an Assistant Teacher (Science) with
Respondent No. 1, S.S. Mota Singh Model Senior Secondary School,
Paschim Vihar, a recognised private unaided school governed by the Delhi
School Education Act, 1973 and the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.
2. The grievance raised in the petition is that, notwithstanding the
statutory mandate contained in Section 10 of the Delhi School Education
Act, 1973, the School has not revised the Petitioner’s pay in accordance with
the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission (“7th CPC“). The
Petitioner seeks fixation of her pay with effect from 1 st January, 2016 and
payment of the consequential arrears and allowances. She has also made
certain ancillary claims relating to ACP, provident fund, ESI, bonus, leave
W.P.(C) 7232/2022 Page 1 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/07/2026 at 20:45:10
encashment and other service benefits.
3. The Petitioner states that she made a representation to the School on
16th November, 2021, followed by a legal notice dated 8 th February, 2022.
According to her, neither resulted in implementation of the revised pay
structure, compelling her to institute the present petition.
4. The School does not dispute that the Petitioner is its regular employee
or that she is presently being paid in accordance with the 6th Central Pay
Commission (“6th CPC). Nor does it dispute, in principle, the entitlement of
employees of recognised private schools to the benefits of the 7th CPC. Its
principal defence is financial incapacity.
5. The School attributes its financial position to the rejection of its
proposals for enhancement of fee, depletion of its reserves, reduction in the
number of students, non-payment of fee during the Covid-19 pandemic and
the alleged disruption of its functioning on account of demonstrations
undertaken by some of its employees. It relies upon its audited accounts,
orders passed in proceedings concerning fee enhancement and the
proceedings dated 12th September, 2017 of the Delhi High Court Committee
for Review of School Fee.
6. The financial statement placed on record shows annual deficits from
the financial year 2015-16 onwards and an aggregate deficit of
approximately INR 27.91 crore up to the financial year 2021-22. The School
also relies upon the order dated 20th May, 2022 of the Directorate of
Education, by which it was permitted to enhance the tuition fee by 12% with
effect from 1st July, 2022.
7. The School further contends that the Directorate could not, by an
administrative order issued in 2017, impose the revised pay structure
W.P.(C) 7232/2022 Page 2 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/07/2026 at 20:45:10
retrospectively from 1st January, 2016. It has also questioned the
maintainability of the petition on the ground that a private unaided school is
not “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
8. The Directorate of Education has opposed the stand of the School. In
its counter affidavit, it states that Respondent No. 1 is a recognised private
unaided school and is statutorily bound to comply with Section 10 of the Act
as well as the orders issued by the Directorate. It relies upon the orders dated
25th August, 2017 and 9th October, 2019, by which all recognised private
unaided schools were directed to implement the Central Civil Services
(Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 in respect of their regular employees.
9. The Directorate has also placed on record the School’s
communication dated 15th December, 2025. In that communication, the
School stated that it intended to make payment to its employees in
accordance with the 7th CPC, but had been unable to do so on account of
shortage of funds. The Directorate, therefore, maintains that the School has
admittedly not implemented the revised pay structure and that its plea of
financial incapacity cannot relieve it of the statutory obligation.
10. The controversy lies within a narrow compass. The questions which
arise are whether the petition is maintainable against a recognised private
unaided school; whether the Petitioner is entitled to pay fixation under the
7th CPC with effect from 1st January, 2016; and whether the School’s
financial position constitutes a valid defence to that claim.
Maintainability
11. The objection to the maintainability of the petition proceeds on a
misconception as to the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution. The
Petitioner does not seek enforcement of a purely private contractual
W.P.(C) 7232/2022 Page 3 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/07/2026 at 20:45:10
obligation. She seeks performance of a duty imposed upon a recognised
private school by Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973.
12. The fact that the School may not be “State” within the meaning of
Article 12 does not place its statutory obligations beyond judicial review. In
Raj Soni v. Air Officer Incharge Administration,1 the Supreme Court held
that recognised private schools in Delhi, whether aided or unaided, are
governed by the Act and Rules and cannot defy a statutory obligation on the
plea that they are not authorities under Article 12.
13. A similar objection as to the maintainability of a writ petition against
a recognised private unaided school was raised in Kuttamparampath Sudha
Nair & Ors. v. Managing Committee, Sri Sathya Sai Vidya Vihar & Anr.2
The Court rejected the objection, holding that where the relief sought is, in
essence, enforcement of a statutory obligation under Section 10(1) of the
Delhi School Education Act, 1973, a writ of mandamus would lie to enforce
such statutory duty. The present petition is, therefore, maintainable..
Entitlement under Section 10
14. Section 10(1) mandates that the scales of pay, allowances and other
prescribed benefits of employees of a recognised private school shall not be
less than those admissible to employees of corresponding status in schools
run by the appropriate authority. The expression “shall not be less” leaves no
discretion with the management of a recognised school to prescribe or
continue a lower pay structure.
15. This construction is supported by the decisions in Frank Anthony
1
(1990) 3 SCC 261.
2
2021:DHC:1533.
W.P.(C) 7232/2022 Page 4 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/07/2026 at 20:45:10
Public School Employees’ Association v. Union of India,3 and Dhanwant
Kaur Butalia v. Guru Nanak Public School.4 In Frank Anthony while
examining the constitutional validity of excluding unaided minority schools
from the operation of Section 8 to 11, the Supreme Court held that the
mandate of Section 10 is a permissible regulatory measure aimed at
attracting competent staff and ensuring excellence in educational
institutions. The said principle has since been reiterated by this Court in
Dhanwant Kaur Butalia wherein it was observed that Section 10 embodies
the minimum statutory standard which every recognised school is required
to observe.
16. Consequent upon adoption of the Central Civil Services (Revised
Pay) Rules, 2016 for employees of Government schools, the Directorate
issued the order dated 25th August, 2017 directing the managing committees
of all recognised private unaided schools to implement the revised pay
structure for their regular employees. The order expressly made pay fixation
and arrears effective from 1st January, 2016. The direction was reiterated on
9th October, 2019.
17. The liability of this very management has already been considered by
this Court. In Amrita Pritam & Ors. v. S.S. Mota Singh Junior Model
School & Ors.,5 the Court directed the School to extend the benefits of the
7th CPC to its employees and to release the arrears. The plea that
implementation was not possible because of financial hardship and
restrictions upon fee enhancement was expressly rejected.
18. The School carried that judgment in appeal. By order dated 26 th
3
(1986) 4 SCC 707.
4
2016:DHC:320-DB.
W.P.(C) 7232/2022 Page 5 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/07/2026 at 20:45:10
September, 2023 in LPA 399/2023 titled S.S. Mota Singh Junior Model
School & Anr. v. Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi
& Ors., the Division Bench dismissed the appeal.
19. A similar claim by other employees of the same School was allowed
in Chhaya Singh & Ors. v. S.S. Mota Singh Senior Secondary Model
School & Ors.6 The Court found the matter squarely covered by Amrita
Pritam and directed payment of the arrears arising from 7th CPC.
20. The Petitioner is similarly situated. The School has not pointed out
any distinction in her appointment, status or post which would exclude her
from the statutory parity mandated by Section 10. On the contrary, its own
reply states that the entitlement of its employees to 7th CPC has never been
questioned. Its communication dated 15th December, 2025 reiterates its
intention to pay, while attributing the continued default only to shortage of
funds.
Financial incapacity
21. The material placed by the School regarding its financial condition
has been considered. The Court does not doubt that implementation of a
revised pay structure may impose a substantial financial burden upon a
private unaided school. That circumstance, however, cannot alter the effect
of the statutory obligation.
22. The proceeding dated 12th September, 2017 of the Delhi High Court
Committee for Review of School Fee concerned the School’s financial
position in the context of implementation of the 6th CPC and the fee
enhancement effected pursuant to the Directorate’s order dated 11 th
5
2021:DHC:2960.
6
In W.P.(C) 12309/2021, decided on 19th May, 2022.
W.P.(C) 7232/2022 Page 6 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/07/2026 at 20:45:10
February, 2009. It did not exempt the School from Section 10, much less
authorise it to withhold the benefits of the Seventh Central Pay Commission.
23. Moreover, the School’s entitlement to recover additional fee from its
students and its statutory obligation under Section 10 operate in distinct
fields. Whether or not permission for enhancement of fee is granted does not
affect the Petitioner’s statutory entitlement to receive salary in accordance
with Section 10.
24. The audited accounts and the order dated 20th May, 2022 may be
relevant to the time reasonably required for discharging the accumulated
liability. They cannot extinguish the liability itself. The law on this aspect
has already been applied against the same management and affirmed in
appeal.
Effective date
25. The School’s challenge to the retrospective operation of the
Directorate’s order dated 25th August, 2017 is equally untenable. The
liability does not originate in the order dated 25 th August, 2017. It arises
from Section 10 itself. Once the revised pay became admissible to
employees of corresponding status in Government schools with effect from
1st January, 2016, the statutory parity prescribed by Section 10 operated
from the same date.
26. The Directorate’s orders did not create a new liability for an anterior
period. They required recognised private schools to give effect to an existing
statutory obligation. The Petitioner is, accordingly, entitled to revision of her
basic pay from 1st January, 2016. Revised allowances shall, however, be
payable from the respective dates on which those allowances became
admissible to employees of corresponding status in Government schools
W.P.(C) 7232/2022 Page 7 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/07/2026 at 20:45:10
under the applicable rules and orders.
Other claims
27. The allegations concerning demonstrations by teachers, reduction in
student strength and the memorandum stated to have been issued to the
Petitioner regarding corporal punishment have no bearing upon the present
controversy. No disciplinary order affecting her status or entitlement has
been placed before the Court. Such allegations cannot constitute an answer
to the claim under Section 10.
28. The petition also contains general claims relating to ACP, ESI,
provident fund, bonus, overtime, leave encashment and other benefits. These
claims have not been pressed.
Relief
29. The School has had the benefit of considerable time. The judgment in
Amrita Pritam was rendered before the present petition was instituted, and
the appeal against that judgment has since been dismissed. Even in
December 2025, the School admitted that no payment under 7th CPC had
been made to the Petitioner. There is, therefore, no justification for any
further indefinite postponement.
30. The financial material placed on record nevertheless persuades the
Court to grant a reasonable period for liquidation of the accumulated arrears.
As regards interest, the Petitioner has claimed interest at the rate of 18% per
annum. That rate is plainly excessive. At the same time, complete denial of
interest would permit the School to retain, without consequence, amounts
which ought to have formed part of the Petitioner’s salary.
31. The writ petition is, accordingly, partly allowed with the following
directions:
W.P.(C) 7232/2022 Page 8 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/07/2026 at 20:45:10
i. Respondent No. 1 shall refix the Petitioner’s pay in accordance with
the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 and the applicable
orders of the Directorate of Education, with effect from 1st January, 2016.
ii. Revised allowances shall be calculated from the respective dates on
which they became payable to employees of corresponding status in
Government schools.
iii. A detailed statement of fixation and arrears, after adjustment of the
amounts already paid, shall be furnished to the Petitioner and the Directorate
of Education within four weeks.
iv. The current salary of the Petitioner shall, if not already being paid in
accordance with the revised pay structure, be brought in conformity with 7th
CPC from the next ensuing salary month.
v. The entire arrears shall be released within twelve weeks from today.
vi. The arrears shall carry simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of institution of the present petition until the date of actual
payment.
vii. Respondent No. 2 shall verify the fixation and calculation submitted
by the School and ensure compliance with these directions. In the event of
default, it shall take such action as is permissible under the Delhi School
Education Act, 1973 and the Rules framed thereunder.
32. The writ petition and the pending applications are disposed of in the
aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 17, 2026/ab
W.P.(C) 7232/2022 Page 9 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/07/2026 at 20:45:10
