Disposed

Kavita Devi v. Delhi Sanskrit Academy & Ors.

Delhi HC4 Aug 2025W.P.(C)/4105/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contractual Trained Graduate Teachers (Sanskrit) at Delhi Sanskrit Academy sought gratuity on the strength of this Court's earlier judgment in Irfan Ali concerning Urdu and Punjabi Academies. The court held their cases entirely covered by Irfan Ali, including the two-month break point, and disposed of the petitions with directions in terms of paragraphs 9 to 11 of that judgment.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of with directions in terms of paragraphs 9 to 11 of Irfan Ali for calculation and release of gratuity.

Kavita Devi Vs Delhi Sanskrit Academy & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~4 to 9

¶2

*	IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW	DELHI
+	W.P.(C) 4105/2024
	KAVITA DEVI versus	.....Petitioner
	DELHI SANSKRIT ACADEMY & ORS. ....	.Respondents
+	W.P.(C) 4241/2024
	SAROJ SAXENA	.....Petitioner
	versus
	DELHI SANSKRIT ACADEMY & ORS. ....	.Respondents
+	W.P.(C) 4616/2024
	VIJAY GOEL versus	.....Petitioner
	DELHI SANSKRIT ACADEMY & ORS. ....	.Respondents
+	W.P.(C) 4617/2024
	KANIKA ARORA	.....Petitioner
	versus
	DELHI SANSKRIT ACADEMY & ORS. ....	.Respondents
+	W.P.(C) 4618/2024 SHASHI BALA	.....Petitioner
	versus
	DELHI SANSKRIT ACADEMY & ORS. ....	.Respondents

¶3

W.P.(C) 4105/2024 & Connected Matters

¶4

Page 1 of 5

¶5

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 06/08/2025 at 12:10:37

¶6

+ W.P.(C) 4620/2024 MAMTA SHARMA .....Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

DELHI SANSKRIT ACADEMY & ORS.

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Appearance:- Mr. Varun Mudgil, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Mohit Mudgal, Ms. Eti Kushwaha & Mr. Abhinav Chandan, Advocates for Petitioners in Item Nos. 4 to 9

¶11

Mr. Abhay Dixit, Ms. Risha Dixit & Mr. Harish Plaha, Advocates for Delhi Sanskrit Academy in Item Nos. 4 to 9.

¶12

Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel for GNCTD with Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam & Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates for R-2, 3 & 4 in Item Nos. 4 to 9. Mr. Gaurav Dhingra & Mr. Shashank Singh, Advocates for DoE in Item Nos. 4 & 8.

¶13

Ms. Latika Choudhury, Advocate for Respondent in Item No. 9.

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶15

O R D E R % 04.08.2025 1. The petitioners were employed as Trained Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) with Delhi Sanskrit Academy allegedly on a contractual basis. They seek directions for payment of gratuity in terms of the judgment of this Court dated 22.05.2023 in W.P.(C) 6403/2023 and connected matters [ Irfan Ali & Ors. v. Urdu Academy & Ors. and connected matters ] [hereinafter, “ Irfan Ali” ], and assail an order dated 08.12.2023 by which this relief has been denied to them.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

By an order dated 23.01.2025, it was directed as follows:-

¶18

W.P.(C) 4105/2024 & Connected Matters

¶19

Page 2 of 5

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 06/08/2025 at 12:10:37

¶22

“5. The Sanskrit Academy, Urdu Academy and Punjabi Academy are all autonomous bodies under the aegis of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi [“GNCTD”]. To ascertain the correctness of the petitioners’ statement, learned counsel for GNCTD is requested to take instructions as to whether the petitioners’ position is similar to the petitioners in Irfan Ali (supra) and connected cases.

¶23

6. Submissions be filed by the parties directly addressing this aspect, within one week. The submissions may cover the petitioners in all these cases and may be filed in W.P.(C) 4105/2024.

¶24

7. List these petitions in the category of “for admission” matters on 13.02.2025.”

¶25

No submissions have been filed pursuant to the said order.

¶26

The judgment of this Court in Irfan Ali dealt with claims of gratuity on behalf of Trained Graduate Teachers and Post Graduate Teachers in the Punjabi Academy and the Urdu Academy, which are admittedly similar in all respects to the Delhi Sanskrit Academy. The Court considered the question as to whether a distinction can be drawn based on the nature of the employment for the purposes of gratuity, and came to the following conclusion:

¶27

“8. Indisputably, the Petitioners are covered under the amended definition of the word ‘employee’ under Section 2(e) of the Act as amended by the Amending Act of 2009. In Janardan Sharma (supra) this Court has obliterated the distinction between Teachers based on the nature of their employment viz. full-time/part-time/ad hoc/contract etc. as the Act itself does not contemplate such a distinction for grant of Gratuity. The judgment was followed by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of petitions being W.P. (C) 13761/2022 and connected matters, titled Anuradha Seem and Others v. Directorate of Education & Anr. decided on 17.11.2022 and the Respondents were directed to extend the benefits of the decision to the Petitioners therein. Therefore, in my view, Petitioners are right in their submission that their cases are squarely covered by the aforementioned judgments where the issue stands crystallized and it is no longer open to the Respondents to deny Gratuity to them.

¶28

9. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, learned Standing Counsel appearing on

¶29

W.P.(C) 4105/2024 & Connected Matters

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

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 06/08/2025 at 12:10:37

¶33

behalf of Respondents No. 1 and 2 does not dispute the fact that case of the Petitioners in each of the writ petitions is covered by the judgments of this Court in Janardan Sharma (supra) and Anuradha Seem (supra), on all four corners. She, however, points out that a large number of employees are now entitled for grant of Gratuity and the matter is under active consideration for release of the amounts. She further submits that release of Gratuity entails calculations of the amounts payable, which in turn involves reckoning of various factors such as number of years of service, calculation of fraction of each year of service rendered etc., in accordance with the provisions of the Act and is a time consuming exercise. It is therefore prayed that at least a period of eight weeks be given to the Respondents to calculate and disburse the arrears of Gratuity to the Petitioners, in accordance with the Act.

¶34

10. In view of the stand taken by the Respondents, writ petitions are allowed with directions to the Respondents to calculate and release the amounts payable to the Petitioners towards Gratuity, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, as the cases of the Petitioners are squarely covered by the judgments of this Court in Janardan Sharma (supra) and Anuradha Seem (supra).

¶35

11. Assurance of Ms. Ahlawat that the entire exercise shall be carried out and completed within a period of eight weeks from today is taken on record. Calculations of the amounts disbursed shall also be furnished to the Petitioners and in case of any surviving grievances, Petitioners would be at liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedies, in accordance with law.”

¶36

The only ground urged in the counter affidavit, to resist the applicability of the judgment in Irfan Ali, is that the petitioners’ service was not continuous, as two months’ break in service was given between the academic years. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners, and not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents, that this position obtained even in the cases of Punjabi Academy and Urdu Academy, which were considered in Irfan Ali .

¶37

For the aforesaid reasons, I find that the petitioners’ cases are entirely covered by the judgment in Irfan Ali, and the writ petitions are

¶38

W.P.(C) 4105/2024 & Connected Matters

¶39

Page 4 of 5

¶40

This is a digitally signed order.

¶41

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 06/08/2025 at 12:10:37

¶42

disposed of with directions in terms of paragraphs 9 to 11 of Irfan Ali .

¶43

The writ petitions stand disposed of with these observations.

¶44

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶45

AUGUST 4, 2025 ‘pv/JM’/

¶46

W.P.(C) 4105/2024 & Connected Matters

¶47

Page 5 of 5

¶48

Kavita Devi v. Delhi Sanskrit Academy & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kavita Devi v. Delhi Sanskrit Academy & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunshine Anand Swain Vs University Grant Commission & Anr.

Gaurav Punj Vs the New Delhi Municipal Council

Kuldeep Kumar Mittal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Vikash Vs Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Swati Saista Vs the Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Pheran Singh Yadav & Anr. Vs MCD

Demas Developers Private Limited Vs Bank of Baroda & Ors.

Lecoanet Hemant India Pvt. Ltd. (Successor / Transferee Company of Ip Support Services (India) Pvt. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 13(1), Delhi

M/S. Qutub Enterprises & Anr. Vs Dhan Raj & Ors.

Kanta Devi Vs Jawaharlal Nehru University

Sudhanshu Kumar Rath Vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (Dsssb)

Manish Kumar Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Mrs Rajlakshmi Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Maya Devi Vs Union of India & Ors.