The Delhi High Court has set aside an order passed by the Deputy Director of Education (DOE) directing the school to release all admissible dues to the teacher, observing that the authority failed to comply with the limited remit granted by the court to examine rival computations of entitlement.
The case arose from a dispute between the petitioner, the school, and the respondent No. 2, a PGT (commerce) teacher, with regard to various service-related benefits, including benefits in accordance with the recommendations of the 6th and 7th pay commissions. While the teacher had claimed that certain dues remained unpaid, the school argued that all benefits had already been paid, raising rival computations.
Previously, the High Court, in an order dated April 17, 2025, had directed the DOE to examine the rival claims after affording an opportunity of hearing to both sides and to examine the issue of computations while reserving the rights and contentions of the parties. Complying with the directions, the deputy director of education passed the impugned order date of October 10, 2025.
However, the court noted that instead of examining the rival computations as directed, the authority proceeded on an erroneous premise and issued directions for release of dues. The Couted observed that DoE missed this crucial aspect, thereby constraining the Petitioner to once again approach this Court.
Accordingly, Justice Sanjeev Narula has set aside the order dated October 10, 2025, and remanded the matter to the DOE to undertake a fresh exercise, strictly in terms of the order dated April 17, 2025 and conclude it within four weeks.
Appearance:
Advocate Atul Jain and Advocate Binay Kumar for the Petitioner
Advocate Latika for Respondent 1
Advocate Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate Kritika Matta, Advocate Tanya Rose, Advocate Bhumika Kundra, Advocate Pradeep Kumar and Advocate Lokesh Chahuhan for Respondent 2.
