Dismissed¶42

Shri Surender Kumar v. Maharaja Agarsain Public School (Recognized) and Anr.

Delhi HC4 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/5181/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Surender Kumar v. Maharaja Agarsain Public School, W.P.(C) 5181/2019, Delhi High Court, decided 04.02.2026 by Sanjeev Narula, J. PGT (Chemistry) claim for statutory pay scale and 6th CPC arrears against private school under Section 10 DSEA and DoE order dated 01.07.2016; writ declined as continuation of service till April 2017 was a disputed question of fact not amenable under Article 226; alternative ground of delay and laches (petition filed 19.12.2018); dismissed with liberty to pursue other remedies; no opinion on eligibility, contractual nature of engagement, or cessation of service.

What did the court decide?

None on the claim; Petitioner granted liberty to pursue such other remedies as may be available in law for establishing his claim regarding continuation of employment and consequential dues. ¶42

Shri Surender Kumar Vs Maharaja Agarsain Public… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None on the claim; Petitioner granted liberty to pursue such other remedies as may be available in law for establishing his claim regarding continuation of employment and consequential dues.

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner continued in employment till April 2017, i.e., whether his engagement subsisted so as to found the claim for arrears and benefits. +2 more

¶39

Court's answer

No material was placed on record proving that the Petitioner remained in service till April 2017; he relied only on staff details for 2011-2012 and salary records from 2012, and the claim that payments were made in cash would require evidentiary proof that cannot be undertaken in writ proceedings.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

Whether the Petitioner continued in employment till April 2017 is a crucial disputed question of fact not amenable to adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution; the issue is foundational to the claim for arrears and benefits under the 6th CPC, which presupposes proof of subsisting employment.

¶39

Key takeaways

In any event, the claim would be vulnerable on the ground of delay and laches, the petition having been instituted on 19th December 2018.ratio¶39
The Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition; the Petitioner is at liberty to pursue such other remedies as may be available in law for establishing his claim regarding continuation of employment and consequential dues.ratio¶40
Since the petition is not entertained on the ground of disputed questions of fact/delay, the Court has not expressed any opinion on the other disputed issues raised by the Respondent School, including eligibility, the nature of the contractual arrangement, or the circumstances in which the engagement came to an end.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (Delhi High Court, Sanjeev Narula, J.) by a PGT (Chemistry) seeking mandamus against a recognised private school for salary and arrears under Section 10, Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the 6th/7th CPC, relying on a DoE order dated 01.07.2016. HELD: (i) no material on record proved that the Petitioner remained in service till April 2017 beyond 2011-2012 staff details and 2012 salary records, and the allegation of cash payments required evidentiary proof not possible in writ proceedings; (ii) continuation of employment till April 2017 was a crucial disputed question of fact not amenable to adjudication under Article 226, being foundational to the arrears claim; (iii) in any event the claim, instituted on 19.12.2018, was vulnerable to delay and laches. Petition dismissed with liberty to pursue other available remedies; the Court expressed no opinion on eligibility, the nature of the contractual arrangement, or the circumstances in which the engagement ended. No precedents were cited.

¶1

$~13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 5181/2019

¶4

SHRI SURENDER KUMAR .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Bhuvneshwar Tyagi, Advocate.

¶6

Versus

¶7

MAHARAJA AGARSAIN PUBLIC SCHOOL (RECOGNIZED) AND ANR. .....Respondents

¶8

Through: Mr. Kamal Gupta, MINR Tripti Gupta, Mr. Sparsh Aggarwal, Mr. Siddharth Arora, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Ms. Prajna Pandita, Advocates for R- 2/DoE.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶10

O R D E R % 04.02.2026

¶11

The Petitioner asserts that he was appointed as a PGT (Chemistry) with Respondent No. 1 School and joined duties on 04^th July, 2011. It is the Petitioner’s case that he successfully completed probation and continued in service in the same capacity; however, no formal confirmation letter was issued. In support, he relies upon the staff details for the academic year 2011–2012 prepared by Respondent No. 1, which records his date of joining as 04^th July, 2011.

¶12

The Petitioner states that he was initially paid a salary of INR 16,000/- per month and that his last drawn salary in March 2017 was INR

¶13

Page 1 of 6

¶14

W.P.(C) 5181/2019

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 09/02/2026 at 12:46:47

¶17

23,500/- per month. He contends that the Respondent School was statutorily obliged to pay him in accordance with the pay scales mandated under Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973,¹ including implementation of the 6^th CPC. As a PGT teacher, he was entitled to the pay scale of INR 9,300-34,800 with grade pay of INR 4,800, along with admissible allowances such as HRA, TA and DA, and thereafter to revised emoluments under the 7^th CPC.

¶18

He alleges that the school did not pay salaries to its teaching and nonteaching staff in accordance with the statutory mandate and that salary payments to him were made in cash. The Petitioner states that he continued to serve the school for more than five years despite the alleged noncompliance.

¶19

It is further contended that he was unlawfully removed from service in the month of April, 2017 without issuing of any notice. The Petitioner relies on the report of the committee headed by Justice Anil Dev Singh (Retd.), constituted pursuant to directions of this Court to examine complaints relating to fee collection and pay commission compliance by recognized private schools. The committee reported irregularities in implementation of the 6^th CPC in several schools, including Respondent No. 1. Based on its interim findings, the Directorate of Education issued an order dated 01^st July, 2016 directing the concerned schools to implement the 6th CPC and release arrears.

¶20

The Petitioner states that he thereafter made representations to Respondents No. 1 and 2 seeking implementation of the prescribed pay scales and payment of arrears in terms of the aforesaid order dated 01^st July,

¶21

1 “DSEA”

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

W.P.(C) 5181/2019

¶24

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 09/02/2026 at 12:46:47

¶25

However, no corrective action was taken. It is therefore argued that the Respondents have violated the Delhi School Education Act and Rules and that a writ of mandamus ought to issue directing payment of arrears and salary in accordance with the statutory pay scales and the DoE order.

¶26

On the other hand, Respondent No. 1 School contends that the Petitioner’s engagement was purely contractual and continued only up to the year 2015, after which he stopped reporting for duty of his own accord. It is asserted that all dues payable to the Petitioner stood settled and that there was no termination of service. According to the school, the Petitioner voluntarily discontinued his engagement and the allegation of oral removal in April 2017 is denied.

¶27

The school further denies the allegation that salary payments were made only in cash and disputes all allegations of statutory non-compliance. With regard to entitlement under the 6^th CPC and the order dated 01^st July, 2016, it is contended that since the Petitioner had already ceased to work in 2015, he cannot claim any benefit under the said order. Therefore, no arrears on account of non-implementation of the 6^th CPC are payable to the Petitioner.

¶28

Without prejudice to the above, Respondent No. 1 submits that the petition raises disputed questions of fact, including the nature and duration of employment, cessation of service, and alleged dues, which are not amenable to adjudication in writ jurisdiction.

¶29

The Court has considered the aforenoted contentions. As regards the Petitioner’s appointment, the Court has taken note of memorandum (Annexure R-1/3) issue by the Respondent School which reads as follows:

¶30

Page 3 of 6

¶31

W.P.(C) 5181/2019

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

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 09/02/2026 at 12:46:47

¶34

The aforesaid memorandum reflects a consolidated salary of INR 18,000/- per month w.e.f 09^th July, 2012 to 31^st May, 2013. The Petitioner asserts that his employment continued till April 2017, whereas the Respondent School contends that he stopped reporting for duty in 2015. 11. On the question of continuation of employment, no material has been

¶35

W.P.(C) 5181/2019 Page 4 of 6

¶36

This is a digitally signed order.

¶37

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 09/02/2026 at 12:46:47

¶38

placed on record which this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, can accept as proof that the Petitioner remained in service till April 2017. The Petitioner relies only on staff details for the academic year 2011-2012 and salary records from 2012, and no document has been produced to demonstrate continuation of service thereafter. His case rests primarily on the assertion that payments were made in cash, a claim which would necessarily require evidentiary proof that cannot be undertaken in writ proceedings.

¶39

In view of the above, the issue regarding whether the Petitioner continued in employment till April 2017 therefore raises a crucial disputed question of fact which is not amenable to adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution. This issue is foundational to the claim for arrears and benefits under the 6^th CPC, which presupposes proof of subsisting employment. In the absence of such proof, and bearing in mind that the present petition was instituted on 19^th December 2018, the claim would, in any event, be vulnerable on the ground of delay and laches.

¶40

In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. It is clarified that the Petitioner shall be at liberty to pursue such other remedies as may be available in law for establishing his claim regarding continuation of employment and consequential dues.

¶41

It is further clarified that since the petition is not being entertained on the above ground, this Court has not expressed an opinion on the other disputed issues raised by the Respondent School, including the allegations concerning eligibility, the nature of the contractual arrangement, or the circumstances under which the engagement came to an end.

¶42

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed along with pending

¶43

Page 5 of 6

¶44

W.P.(C) 5181/2019

¶45

This is a digitally signed order.

¶46

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 09/02/2026 at 12:46:47

¶47

application(s), if any.

¶48

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶49

FEBRUARY 4, 2026/ab

¶50

Page 6 of 6

¶51

W.P.(C) 5181/2019

¶52

This is a digitally signed order.

¶53

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 09/02/2026 at 12:46:47

Shri Surender Kumar v. Maharaja Agarsain Public School (Recognized) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Surender Kumar v. Maharaja Agarsain Public School (Recognized) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Piraivanmathi P Vs Directorate of Education and Ors.

M/S Iifl Home Finance Ltd. Vs Sagar Aggarwal & Ors.

Dr Gitanjali Dey Vs Punjab National Bank through Branch Manager Vikas Puri

Amit Jain Vs General Manager Canara Bank & Ors.

Dr Bipin Batra Vs National Board of Examinations and Another

Resident Welfare Association Pocket- K and Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Santhi Caterers Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kartik Rana Vs Airport Authority of India

Piraivanmathi P Vs Directorate of Education and Ors.

Amit Jain Vs General Manager Canara Bank & Ors.

Ashutosh Kumar Vs Nationals Scheduled Castes Finance and Development Corporation

Sunita Rani Vs Govt. of NCT Delhi and Ors.

Moti Lal Meena Vs Airports Authority of India

Raj Rani Verma Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi MCD through Its Commissioner & Anr.