Delhi HC quashes order forming panels on pvt school teachers’ pay

A division bench held that the single judge erred in delegating judicial duties to committees on 6th, 7th CPC salary issues; case sent back for fresh hearing.

A division bench of the Delhi High Court has set aside a single judge’s order directing the Delhi government to constitute two high-powered committees (HPCs) for payment of salaries to teachers in private unaided schools in accordance with the 6th and 7th Central Pay Commissions (CPC).

Court rules committees can’t decide judicial matters on 6th, 7th CPC pay; directs single judge to reconsider petitions by teachers, schools. (Shutterstock)

A bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Vimal Kumar Yadav, in its October 10 ruling released on Monday, observed that the earlier order effectively delegated judicial functions to the committee, which was legally impermissible. The court emphasised that judicial functions must be performed by judges themselves and cannot be assigned to any committees constituted by the court.

“The courts cannot relegate judicial functions to the committees, asking them to adjudicate upon a lis which is the function of courts/tribunals. The judicial functions are to be discharged by the judges and cannot be delegated to any committee formed by the courts. Committees can only be constituted by the courts to give a report on the facts to assist the court in adjudicating rival claims,” the court opined.

The court passed the order while dealing with the petitions filed by more than 50 teachers of various unaided private schools of Delhi against a single judge’s November 2023 ruling. The ruling was also challenged by various schools, including Ryan International, GD Goenka Public School.

In its ruling, the single judge had directed the Delhi government to set up two high-powered committees (HPCs) at the central and zonal levels to oversee the implementation of the 6th and 7th Central Pay Commission recommendations concerning salaries and arrears of staff in private unaided schools and to devise a mechanism for payment where schools lacked sufficient funds.

The teachers in their petition before the division bench had contended through advocates Ashok Agarwal, Kumar Utkarsh, that once the single judge had determined their entitlement to the benefits of the 6th and 7th CPC, their writ for payment of salary should have been allowed directly, instead of relegating the judicial function to committees.

The schools represented through senior advocate Romy Chacko had asserted that they had raised several contentions, like eligibility of teachers for claiming benefit as per the recommendations of the 6th and 7th CPC, their mode of appointment, the issues regarding rights of schools to hike fee; however, the same were not considered while delivering the verdict.

Ultimately, the court set aside the direction and remanded the matter back before the single judge for fresh consideration. “In view of the above, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned Judgment and remand the matter back to the Roster Bench for fresh consideration,” the court maintained.