N. K. Bagrodia Public School, Dwarka, & ANR. v. Directorate Of Education & ANR.

$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 90/2026, CM APPL. 509-510/2026 N. K. BAGRODIA PUBLIC SCHOOL, DWARKA, & ANR.

.....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Atul Jain and Mr. Binay Kr.

Joshi, Advocates.

versus DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Ms. Kritika Matta, Ms. Tanya Rose, Ms. Bhumika Kundra, Mr. Pradeep Kumar and Mr. Lokesh Chauhan, Advocates for R-2.

Ms. Latika, Advocate for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 06.01.2026 1.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 10th October, 2025 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, directing the Petitioner School to release all admissible dues as well as allowances to Respondent No. 2, purportedly in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in order dated 17th April, 2025 in W.P.(C) 16281/2022. 2.

The background relevant to the present petition is as follows: Respondent No. 2, Ms. Leela Anand, is serving with the Petitioner School as a teacher in the capacity of PGT (Commerce). She had earlier approached this Court by way of a writ petition seeking various service-related benefits, including revision of salary in accordance with the recommendations of the W.P.(C) 90/2026 Page 1 of 4 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

6th and 7th Central Pay Commissions, along with other consequential reliefs. 3.

In the said proceedings, the Petitioner School contended that all benefits accruing to Respondent No. 2 under the 6th and 7th Pay Commissions had already been duly paid. This assertion was disputed by Respondent No. 2. In view of the rival contentions, this Court, while disposing of the writ petition by order dated 17th April, 2025, directed Respondent No. 1/Directorate of Education1 to examine the issue of computation of dues after affording an opportunity of hearing to both parties. The relevant extract of the said order reads as under: "7.

Having regard to the nature of the controversy, learned counsel for the parties suggest that the matter be referred to the DoE, which may hear both parties and dispose of the grievances in accordance with law. Learned counsel for DoE has no objection to this suggestion. 8.

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of, with the direction that the writ petition will be placed before the DoE, as it contains a detailed computation of the claimed dues. If the petitioner wishes to file any additional document before the DoE, she may do so within one week from today. The respondent shall file its computation of dues/ submissions with regard to the petitioner's claims within two weeks thereafter. The DoE is directed to hear the parties, and decide the petitioner's entitlements, within a period of six weeks thereafter.

9.

The rights and contentions of the parties are reserved." 4.

Thus, while expressly reserving the rights and contentions of the parties, the DoE was directed to examine the rival computations, afford an opportunity of hearing to both sides, and thereafter determine the question of Respondent No. 2's entitlement.

5.

In purported compliance with the aforesaid directions, the Deputy Director of Education passed the impugned order dated 10th October, 2025, the operative portion whereof reads as under: "Now therefore, the Manager of school, N. K. Bagrodia Public 1 "DoE"

W.P.(C) 90/2026 Page 2 of 4 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

School, Sector-4, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075 is hereby directed to: a. Comply with the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in WPC No. 16281/2022 to release all the admissible dues to the concerned petitioner after granting revision of salary in terms of 6th CPC and 7th CPC, arrears of salary, payment of salary for the period of maternity leave as per the petitioner's entitlement as per the computation done by the Accounts functionary of this office subject to conditions mentioned therein. (Computation Sheet attached).

b.

To grant Bonus, LTC.

CEA and other admissible allowances/reimbursement as per provisions of Section 10 of DSEAR, 1973 and release its arrears to the concerned teacher as per her entitlement. The Manager of school, N. K. Bagrodia Public School, Sector-4, Dwarka, New Delhi- 110075 is hereby directed to submit the Action Taken Report in respect of compliance of this order within 10 days of the receipt of the order.

This issues with prior approval of the Competent Authority in compliance of the direction of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WPC No. 16821/2022 and CONT. CAS(C) 996/2025."

6.

A reading of the impugned order makes it clear that the Deputy Director of Education proceeded on an erroneous premise that this Court had directed the Petitioner School to release all admissible dues of Respondent No. 2. In fact, this Court had expressly noted that the controversy pertained to the computation of Respondent No. 2's entitlements. Since there were two competing computations, one submitted by the employee (Respondent No.

2) and the other by the School (Petitioner), the DoE was specifically directed to examine the rival computations and thereafter determine the issue of entitlements. This crucial aspect has been overlooked by the DoE, constraining the Petitioner to once again approach this Court. 7.

The impugned order also takes note of a computation sheet annexed thereto, which is in the nature of a draft or tentative calculation, premised on certain assumptions, which are expressly recorded therein. While such an exercise may be apposite in an ideal situation, the controversy before this Court pertains to the actual entitlements of Respondent No. 2, which W.P.(C) 90/2026 Page 3 of 4 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

necessarily has to be determined in the context of the factual matrix of the case and the rival claims of the parties.

8.

In view of the foregoing, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 10th October, 2025 does not conform to with the directions issued by this Court on 17th April, 2025 in W.P.(C) 16281/2022, and proceeds on a course not contemplated therein, despite the express reservation of rights and contentions of the parties. 9.

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the DoE to undertake a fresh exercise, strictly in terms of the directions contained in order dated 17th April, 2025, after granting an opportunity of hearing to both the Petitioner School and Respondent No. 2, and keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. The aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of four weeks from today. 10.

All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open. 11.

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications.

SANJEEV NARULA, J JANUARY 6, 2026 nk W.P.(C) 90/2026 Page 4 of 4 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.