Dismissed

Sangeeta Negi v. Bharti Public School, through Its Manager & Ors.

Delhi HC8 Aug 2025W.P.(C)/11903/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner teacher sought Child CareLeave under Section 10 of Delhi School Education Act, 1973, claiming parity with government teachers. Court dismissed petition relying on Beena Arora which held Section 10 benefits are restricted to monetary benefits like per M.I. Hussain.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and pending application dismissed; parties to bear their own costs.

Sangeeta Negi Vs Bharti Public School, through… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~54

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 11903/2025 & CM APPL. 48517/2025

¶4

SANGEETA NEGI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sermon Rawat, Mr. Vikas Rathor, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

BHARTI PUBLIC SCHOOL, THROUGH ITS MANAGER & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Ms. Priya Shukla, Advocates for DoE.

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 08.08.2025

¶10

The petitioner, who is a teacher in respondent No. 1 – Bharti Public School [“the School”] has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, for a direction upon the School to grant her Child Care Leave [“CCL”].

¶11

Admittedly, there are no Contractual or Service Rules which provide for grant of CCL. Mr. Sermon Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks to take the benefit of Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 [“the Act”], which entitles an employee of a recognised private school to similar scales of pay and allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund, and other prescribed benefits, as granted to their counterparts in government schools.

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

W.P.(C) 11903/2025

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 12/08/2025 at 13:00:56

¶16

However, a judgment of a coordinate bench in Beena Arora v. Directorate of Education & Anr. [2017 SCC OnLine Del 7600] [hereinafter, “ Beena Arora ”], specifically holds that CCL is not covered under Section 10 of the Act. In Beena Arora also, the Court was concerned with a teacher’s request for CCL, seeking to take the benefit of Section 10 of the Act. The coordinate bench noticed a Division Bench judgment of this Court in M.I. Hussain v. Director of Education [LPA 592/2013, decided on 21.03.2014] [hereinafter, “ M.I. Hussain ”], which holds that the phrases employed in Section 10 must be construed ejusdem generis , and that the benefits under Section 10 pertain to facilities which have the “ character of money ”. On this basis, the Division Bench held that a Librarian in a school was not entitled to parity with teachers in terms of their retirement age. Following the principle laid down in M.I. Hussain , the Coordinate Bench in Beena Arora held as follows:

¶17

“3. In the present case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the Child Care Leave if not taken can be converted into monetary benefits such as leave encashment etc. Therefore since Child Care Leave cannot be converted into monetary benefits in view of the ratio of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of M.I. Hussain & Anr. (supra), petitioner hence cannot claim benefit of Child Care Leave by seeking application and benefit of Section 10 of the Act .

¶18

4. In view of the above discussion, and because of the ratio of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of M.I. Hussain (supra) which interprets ‘prescribed benefits’ under Section 10 of the Act only to mean monetary benefits, and that since Child Care Leave is not convertible into monetary benefits by encashment thereof, this writ petition therefore is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.”

¶19

[Emphasis supplied.]

¶20

In view of the binding decision in Beena Arora , which decides the very same issue, I am unable to come to the assistance of the petitioner in

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

W.P.(C) 11903/2025

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 12/08/2025 at 13:00:56

¶25

the present case.

¶26

The writ petition, alongwith pending application, is therefore dismissed.

¶27

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶28

AUGUST 8, 2025 ‘Bhupi/KA’/

¶29

Page 3 of 3

¶30

W.P.(C) 11903/2025

¶31

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 12/08/2025 at 13:00:56

Sangeeta Negi v. Bharti Public School, through Its Manager & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeeta Negi v. Bharti Public School, through Its Manager & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balaji Leather Exports Prop Rakesh Kumar Agarwal Vs Sales Tax Officer Class 2 and Anr.

Captain Harsha Mahendra Vs Alliance Air Aviation Limited & Anr.

Great River Coy Private Limited Vs Coal India Limited and Ors.

Ropas Logistics Private Limited Vs Coal India Limited & Ors.

Guddi Devi & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sheela Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Jnrb International LLP Vs Commissioner of Customs

Virender Kumar Chopra Vs Raj Kumar Prop

Captain Harsha Mahendra Vs Alliance Air Aviation Limited & Anr.

Badi Panchayat Vaish Bise Aggarwal (Regd) Vs Jai Parkash Goyal

Sh Sultan Since Deceased Thr His Lrs Vs Gaon Sabha Shikarpur

M/S Ganpati Sales Agency Vs Sub Registrar Mehrauli

Kewal Kishan Malik & Anr. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Kuldeep and Others Vs Tehsildar (Kanjhawala)