Tara Dutt vs Vardhaman Shiksha Mandir Senior ... on 12 January, 2026

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Tara Dutt vs Vardhaman Shiksha Mandir Senior ... on 12 January, 2026

1. The Petitioners have filed these writ petitions, inter alia, seeking a direction to Vardhman Shiksha Mandir Senior Secondary School (Respondent No. 1) to release their gratuity and leave encashment in respect of unutilised earned leave.

2. Having regard to the commonality of the reliefs sought and the grounds urged, and considering that identical directions are sought against the Respondent School, both the petitions are being disposed of by way of W.P.(C) 11294/2021 and other connected matter Page 1 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.

3. Tara Dutt, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 11294/2021, was serving as a Peon with the Respondent School. After rendering 39 years of service, he retired on 30th September, 2019. He is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the School in releasing his gratuity and leave encashment.

4. Geeta Kaushik, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 2537/2023, was serving as a Trained Graduate Teacher1 with the Respondent School. Her services came to an end on 31st July, 2015. She similarly seeks a direction for release of gratuity and leave encashment in respect of earned leave.

5. In support of their claim for gratuity, both Petitioners place reliance on the judgment of this Court in Vardhman Shiksha Mandir Sr. Sec. School v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.,2 wherein this Court had the occasion to consider the issue of payment of gratuity to employees of the Respondent School. Upon examining an order dated 6th September, 2014 passed by the Director of Education, as well as the scheme of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, this Court held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is applicable to employees of private schools in Delhi, whether aided or unaided, and that the said Act would squarely apply to the Respondent School as well. The relevant portion of the judgement reads as under:

6. That, Section 12 DSEA, 1973 stipulates that "nothing contained in this chapter shall apply to an unaided minority school". The reference of "this chapter" in S.12 refers to CHAPTER IV of the DSEA, 1973 which stipulates the TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF MPLOYEES OF RECOGNISED PRIVATE SCHOOLS covering Section 8 to Section 11 of DSEA, 1973.

7. That, the constitutional validity of Section 12, DSEA, 1973 was 1 "TGT"

W.P.(C) 18004-5/2005, decided on 23rd January, 2017.

W.P.(C) 11294/2021 and other connected matter Page 2 of 4

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 13/01/2026 at 20:37:27 challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Frank Anthony public School Employees Association v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 311,wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that " ... We, therefore, hold that Section 10 of the Delhi Education Act which requires that 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 and which further prescribes the procedure for enforcement of the requirement is a permissible regulation aimed at attracting competent staff and consequently at the excellence of the educational institution. It is a permissible regulation which in no way 'detracts from the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 30(1), to the minority institutions to administer their educational institutions. Therefore, to the extent that Section 12 makes Section 10 inapplicable to unaided minority institutions, it is clearly discriminatory..." Therefore, Section 10 of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 is applicable unaided minority school and the schools in question/Respondent no. 1 1.e. Vardhman Shiksha Mandir Senior Secondary School, Darya Ganj, Delhi is a private un-aided minority schools recognized by the Directorate of Education under the provisions of Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973."

[Emphasis Supplied]

6. The Respondent School has filed a counter-affidavit only in W.P.(C) 11294/2021, wherein it does not dispute Tara Dutt's entitlement of gratuity. It is, however, contended that the gratuity liability would arise only with effect from 3rd April, 1997, and not from the initial date of his employment. This factual position is not disputed by counsel representing Tara Dutt. The Respondent School has further sought adjustment of an amount of ₹1,72,160/- towards House Rent Allowance,3 purportedly received by the Petitioner despite being in occupation of rooms within the school premises. This aspect shall be examined by Respondent No. 2 at the stage of computation of the monetary entitlements payable to Tara Dutt. Pertinently, no counter-affidavit has been filed by the Respondent School in W.P.(C) 3 "HRA"

W.P.(C) 11294/2021 and other connected matter Page 3 of 4

This is a digitally signed order.

7. The counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the Directorate of Education in both these petitions affirm the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to the Respondent School and emphasise that the School is bound to comply with Section 10(1) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. It is further stated that, in terms thereof, the claims of the Petitioners towards gratuity and leave encashment are required to be duly discharged by the School.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, these petitions are disposed of with a direction to the GNCTD, through the Directorate of Education, to consider the respective claims of the Petitioners with regard to leave encashment, as well as the computation of gratuity and HRA (in W.P.(C) 11294/2021), and to communicate the determined amounts to the Respondent School, within a period of four weeks from today. For the said purpose, the Respondent School shall furnish all requisite records before the Deputy Director of Education to enable determination of the amounts payable to the Petitioners. On the amount being determined, the school shall release the payments to the Petitioners, within a period of four weeks thereafter.

9. With the above directions, the petitions are disposed of.

SANJEEV NARULA, J JANUARY 12, 2026/ng W.P.(C) 11294/2021 and other connected matter Page 4 of 4 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 13/01/2026 at 20:37:27

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders