Rights of a private teacher about their salary

 Teachers cannot be deputed for non-teaching tasks

except with explicit orders of Government so as to
provide them with more time to focus on improving the
quality of education.

 Teachers have the right for their professional

development.
Teachers, though governed by the rules of the
organisation they work for, have full freedom to enjoy
their fundamental rights of freedom of speech and
expression bestowed on them by the Constitution of
India.

 Dress codes such as sari cannot be forced upon women

teachers. As long as they are decently dressed, it should
suffice.

 Minimum salary, as prescribed by the board to which

the educational institute is affiliated to, has to be paid to
the teacher.
Teachers cannot be subjected to racial/gender
discrimination at the work place.

 Teachers cannot be forced to practice, advocate a certain

religion.
Teachers have a right to form unions/associations and put
forth their requirements before the authorities concerned.
Teachers have a right to security of tenure (subject to
contractual conditions).
  Teachers have a right against sexual harassment at their
work place.

 Teachers have a right to human rights education.

 Teachers have right to privacy, or to keep one’s image

and likeness from being exploited without permission or
contractual compensation.

 Teachers have a right to publicity/use of one’s identity.

 Teachers have a right to attribution, the right to have a

work published anonymously or pseudonymously and
the right to the integrity of the work (i.e. it cannot be
distorted or otherwise mutilated).

 Here, is a some case law on the salary of private

teachers.

Raj Soni v. Air Officer Incharge Administration And

Another

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). Krishnamani

and M.K.D. Namboodary for the Petitioner. N.C. Sikri and
Mrs. Madhu Sikri for the Respondents. The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH, J. The petitioner
retired from the post of teacher in the Air Force Central
School, New Delhi (herein- after called the 'School') on her
attaining the age of 58 years. The School is a society
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960. In this
petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India she
claims that under the Delhi Education Code read with the
Delhi Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the 'Act') and
the Delhi Education Rules, 1973 (hereinafter called the
'Rules') the age of superannuation for the teachers who joined
service before the coming into force of the Act is 60 years and
as such the management of the school acted arbitrarily in
depriving her of two years of service and consequential
benefits.
The petitioner was initially appointed for a period of five
years. On completion of the said period in 1961 the contract
was renewed for a further period of five years. Thereafter she
continued in service of the school on regular basis till the
impugned retirement dated October 31,1981. The petitioner
has averred that prior to coming into force of the Act the
conditions of service of the teachers of the school provided 60
years as the age of superannution. The respondents have,
however, denied the same and have stated that the school
management was following the practice of retiring the
teachers on attaining the age of 58 years with some exceptions
where extensions were given up to the age of 60 years. The
management has not produced any rules, bye-laws or
instructions to show that the age of superannuation of the
school teachers was 58 years. With a view to provide
uniformity and security of service to the teachers of
recognised schools, the Delhi Administration laid down model
conditions of service including age of superannuation for the
teachers/employees of the said schools and published the
same as a code called the Delhi Education Code. It came into
force with effect from February 15, 1965. Section 208 of the
Code is as under: "Section 208. The normal age of retirement
of an employee of an aided school (including the head of the
School) shall be the date on which he attains the age of 60.
But an employee may be retired any time between the age of
55 & 60 years on grounds of inefficiency, incompetence, or
physical unfitness after he has been given a reasonable
opportunity to show cause against the proposed retirement and
after his representation, if any, has been duly considered."
Section 8(1) of the Act and Rule 110 of the Rules which are
relevant are as under:
8(i) "the administrator may make rules regulating the
minimum qualifications for recruitment and conditions of
service of employees of recognised private school.
Provided that neither the salary nor the right in respect of
leave of absence, age of retirement and pension of an
employee in the employment of an existing school at the
commencement of this Act shall be varied to the disadvantage
of such an employee."
"Rule 110--Retirement Age: (1).Except where an existing
employee is entitled to have a higher age of retirement, every
employee of a recognised private school, whether aided or not
shall hold office until he attains the age of 58 years."
The school is not receiving any aid from the Government but
it is recognised by the Delhi Administration. It is not disputed
that the Act and the Rules are applicable to the teachers
employed in the school and the management is legally bound
to extend the protection of these provisions to them. The age
of superannuation provided in Rule 110 of the Rules is 58
years except in the case of existing employees who were in
service on April 1, 1973 the date of coming into force of the
Act and in their case the higher age of retirement to which
they were entitled has been protected. The petitioner has
specifically asserted in the petition that even though the
school was not an aided school it had accepted the Delhi
Education Code and made it applicable to its employees. It is
stated that the management of the school has been retiring the
teachers at the age of 60 years in terms of Section 208 of the
Code. It is also mentioned that one Mr. P.R. Menon, Head of
English faculty in the school retired on December 9, 1968 on
attaining the age of 60 years. She has further stated that Mr.
Dhawan, Sqdrn. Leader Lal and Mr. Sharma all joined the
school as teachers before the enforcement of Delhi Education
Code and have retired after coming into force of the Act and
the Rules. All of them retired at the age of 60 years whereas
the petitioner was made to retire at the age of 58 years
arbitrarily and discriminately. In the counter affidavit the
Chairman, Executive Committee of the school has stated as
under:
"The Delhi Administration formulated an Education Code by
way of guidelines without any legal force as pronounced by
Hon'ble Delhi High Court ...... " It is further stated:
"the management of the school was adhering the service
conditions inclusive of age of retirement i.e. 58 years and the
pay-scales prescribed by the Delhi Administration, from time
to time under Delhi Administration Act, the past practice of
serving beyond the age of 58 years had been done away rather
on coming into force of the Delhi Education Act as a matter of
principle but for one exception of Shri B.L. Sharma the then
Vice Principal who was given extension as an administrative
expediency."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that prior to
the coming into force of the Act and the Rules, the
management was following the Delhi Education Code which
provided 60 years as the age of superannuation and as such
under rule 110 of the Rules the petitioner has a statutory right
to continue up to the age of 60 years. Mr. N .C. Sikri, learned
counsel appearing for the management, however, contends
that the school is being run by a private management, there is
no Government control in the management of the school and
no aid of any kind is being given to the school. According to
him, the management of the school is neither State nor an
authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as
such no writ petition against the respondent-management is
maintainable. On merits he contends that Delhi Education
Code has no force of law and as such the petitioner has no
enforceable right much less under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India. The Executive Committee which
manages the school is headed by Air Force Officer Incharge
Administration, Air Force Headquarters, New Delhi and
consist of all high ranking Air Force officers of the rank of
Sqdrn. Leader to Air Marshal. The said membership is in their
official capacity which indicates complete control over the
school by the Air Force. It is, however, not necessary to
decide in this case as to whether or not the school is a State or
an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The
recognised private schools in Delhi whether aided or
otherwise are governed by the provisions of the Act and the
Rules. The respondent-management is under a statutory
obligation to uniformly apply the provisions of the Act and
the Rules to the teachers employed in the school. When an
authority is required to act in a particular manner under a
statute it has no option but to follow the statute. The authority
cannot defy the statute on the pretext that it is neither a State
nor an "authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution of
India.
It is not necessary and we do not propose to go into the
question in this case as to whether the petition is maintainable
under Article 32 of the Constitution, because this petition has
been pending in this Court since 1981. The petitioner's claim
is just. It will, therefore, be a traves- ty of justice to send her
to any other forum at this stage. In any case the petitioner
seeks to enforce her statutory right under Section 8 of the Act
read with Rule 110 of the Rules with a further contention that
she has been discriminated in the matter of superannuation so
much so that other teachers similarly situated were retired at
the age of 60 years whereas the petitioner has been singled out
and re- tired at the age of 58 years.
The respondent-management has not produced any Rules or
bye-laws either framed by the management itself or otherwise
to show that there was any uniform provision for retirement of
teachers at the age of 58 years. The averments of the
petitioner that Section 208 of the Delhi Education Code was
being followed and the teachers were superannuated at the age
of 60 years have not been specifically denied. Rather these
averments have been tacitly admitted. Even otherwise every
institution must frame and follow a uniform rule for
superannuating its employees. The age of superannuation
cannot be left to the whims of the employer to enable him to
retire different employees at different ages. In the absence of
any regulation, Bye-laws or policy decision by the
respondent-management regarding the age of superannuation,
we accept the contention of the petitioner that prior to the
coming into force of the Act and the Rules the management
was following the Delhi Education Code which provided 60
years as the age of superannuation for the school teachers. In
that view of the matter under Rule 110 of the Rules, the
petitioner being an existing employee was entitled to be
retired at the age of 60 years.
The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the order of the
respondents retiring the petitioner at the age of 58 years is
quashed. She having already attained the age of 60 years we
direct the respondents to pay the petitioner salary and
allowances for the period of two years. We further direct that
all the postretirement benefits to which the petitioner is
entitled be redetermined assuming the petitioner to have
retired at the age of 60 years. The arrears of salary and
allowances be paid to the petitioner within three months from
today. The respondent being an educational institution we
direct the parties to bear their own costs.

 Case law applicable for due claim of salaries.

Vinita Singh & Ors. vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 14

December, 2021
The case of the petitioners is that they have been working as
PGT/TGT in the respondent No.3 / School on a regular basis.
On March 28, 2013 respondent No.2 Department of Education
issued notification extending the applicability of provisions of
Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952 to the private schools in Delhi. Similar notifications
have been issued in respect of other beneficial legislations
like Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Pursuant to the
recommendations of the 7 th Central Pay Commission, ('7th
CPC', for short), Directorate of Education ('DoE' for short)
issued a notification on October 17, 2017 whereby all the
private recognised schools were asked to implement the same.
The grievance of the petitioners is two-fold that, respondent
No.3 School has not given them salaries / benefits in terms of
the recommendations of the 7th CPC. That apart, they are
neither providing salary slips, nor paying salary through
account transfer nor are they providing appointment letters.
Further the benefits like General Provident Fund ('GPF', for
short), Employees Service Signature Not Verified W.P.(C)
Digitally Signed By:ANIL KUMAR YADAV 5869/2020
Page 2 Signing Date:14.12.2021 19:33:53 Insurance Scheme
('ESI', for short) and payment of gratuity is not being given to
the teachers of the respondent No.3 School.
3. Mr. Sudhir Nagar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners would reiterate the stand as taken by the petitioners
in the writ petition. He also relied upon the Judgment as
rendered by this Court from time to time being Vardhaman
Shiksha Mandir Senior Secondary School and Anr. v. Govt. of
NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6656. According
to him, the notifications issued by the DoE with regard to the
provident fund and payment of gratuity needs to be adhered to
by the respondent No.3. He seeks the prayers as made in the
writ petition.
4. Counter-affidavit has only been filed by respondent Nos. 1
and 2, wherein it is stated that respondent No.3 is a private
unaided recognised school and is bound by the directions /
circulars / notifications / orders issued by the respondent Nos.
1 and 2. With regard to payment of benefits, it is stated by the
counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that in terms of Section
10(1) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 & Rules
('DSEA&R', for short), the teachers of the unaided recognised
private schools are to be paid salary at par with that of the
teachers of corresponding status in the Schools run by the
appropriate authority, i.e., the DoE. It is also stated that the
Schools are under an obligation to make payment of salaries
to the staff by the 7th day of each month, as provided under
the provisions of the DSEA&R. They refer to the complaints
received on May 30, 2020 and June 22, 2020 which have been
forwarded to the respondent No. 3 for their comments, but no
such comments have been sent by the respondent No.3
School. It is also Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) Digitally
Signed By:ANIL KUMAR YADAV 5869/2020 Page 3
Signing Date:14.12.2021 19:33:53 stated that the teachers /
employees working in a private unaided recognised school are
entitled to other allowances at par with the employees /
teachers of the Government School in terms of Section 10(1)
of the DSEA&R.
5. Respondent No. 3, though had filed a counter-affidavit, the
same was returned as being under objection. It appears that
the counsel has not removed the objection (s) to get the same
placed on record.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The grievance
of the petitioners, as stated by their counsel, has two facets;
(1) the payment of salary in terms of recommendations of the
7 th CPC and (2) grant of benefits like GPF, payment of
gratuity and ESI.
7. In so far as the issue of payment of salary is concerned, the
same is no more res-integra in view of the judgment of the
Coordinate Bench of this court in the case of
Kuttamparampath Sudha Nair and Ors. Vs. Managing
Committee, Sri Sathya Sai Vidya Vihar and Ors., W.P. (C)
928/2019 decided on May 6, 2021 wherein this Court rejected
the plea of financial hardship taken by the School against
disbursement of benefits under the 7th CPC and in paragraph
39, the Court has held as under:
8. Similarly, this Court also in the case of Shikha Sharma v.
Guru Harkishan Public School & Ors., W.P.(C) 3746/2020
has granted the similar relief to the teachers therein and hence
the issue of payment of salary under the provisions of 7th
CPC is well settled. In paragraphs 24 & 25, this Court has
held as under:
9. In view of the above, the prayer for grant of salary under
the 7th CPC needs to be allowed. It is ordered accordingly.
10. In so far as the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners with regard to the payment of provident fund /
gratuity and the coverage under the Employees' State
Insurance Act, 1948 ('ESI Act', for short) are concerned,
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have in their counter-affidavit taken a
stand with regard to the issue of notifications for payment of
provident fund and gratuity. In fact a reference is made to
Rule 59 (2)(h) of the DSEA&R to contend that the Schools
are under an obligation to maintain record related to provident
fund and monthly subscription of the contributory fund by the
management. The very fact that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have
issued notifications with regard to the payment of provident
fund and the gratuity, the entitlement of the petitioners for the
same cannot be denied. Hence, respondent No.3 School shall
take immediate steps to ensure the compliance of the
provisions of the Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) Digitally
Signed By: ANIL KUMAR YADAV 5869/2020 Page 6
Signing Date:14.12.2021 19:33:53 relevant Act / Rules with
regard to the payment of provident fund. That apart, the
School is also under an obligation to pay gratuity to the
petitioners, as and when the same becomes payable. In so far
as the plea with regard to the coverage of the petitioners under
the ESI Act is concerned, I find that respondent No.3 has not
commented on the applicability of this Act. Respondent Nos.1
& 2 shall take a decision as to whether the ESI Act is
applicable to the employees and the teachers of a recognised
unaided schools within 12 weeks from today and if the
decision of the DoE is in the affirmative, then the same shall
be communicated to the School for compliance, if the decision
is in the negative then, the petitioners will be at liberty to seek
any remedy as available to them in law. Accordingly,
respondent No.3 is directed to grant benefits / salaries to the
petitioners in terms of the provisions of the 7 the CPC by re-
fixing their revised salary and emoluments under the CCS
Revised pay Rules, 2016. The petitioners shall be entitled to
arrears thereof w.e.f. January 1, 2016 and the same shall be
paid within a period of three months from today. It is made
clear that the petitioners shall not be entitled to interests on
the arrears of salary.

Payment of Gratuity Act is fully applicable to

Teachers in Schools

 on March 07, 2019 the Hon’ able Supreme Court gave a

ruling that “In the light of the amendment made in the
definition of the word “employee” as defined in Section
2(e) of the Act by Amending Act No. 47 of 2009 with
retrospective effect from 03.04.1997, the benefit of the
Payment of Gratuity Act was also extended to the
teachers from 03.04.1997.

 Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the

termination of his employment after he has rendered
continuous service for not less than five years – (a) on
his superannuation, or (b) on his retirement or
resignation, or (c) on his death or disablement due to
 accident or disease: Provided that the completion of
continuous service of 5 years shall not be necessary
where the termination of the employment of any
employee is due to death or disablement.

 Legal Provisions on Employer for Non Payment

of Gratuity under Payment of Act 1972
 Amended) Section 7 of the Act has kept the obligation
for payment of gratuity act on the shoulders
of the employer, few provisions of the act are listed
below:- 1. As soon as Gratuity becomes payable, it
employers responsibility to determine the amount of
gratuity and inform it to an employee in writing (Refer
subsection 2 of Section 7 of the Act). 2. The employer
shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within 30
days from the date when it becomes mandatory. (Refer
Sub-section 3 of Section 7 of the Act). 3. If the amount
of gratuity is not paid within 30 days then the amount of
gratuity and simple interest will be paid by the employer
to the employee for the duration when the payment is not
made to the employee. (Refer Sub-section 4 of Section 7
of the Act). 

Here, is case law on gratuity of government teachers.

Govt School Teachers Asso. Delhi vs Govt. Of Nctd

on 31 January, 2018

The applicants in this O.A. were appointed as Trained

Graduate Teachers prior to 01.01.2006 in the Directorate of
Education. Their appointments were made between 1999 to
2002. The pay scale of Trained Graduate Teacher in the
Directorate of Education was revised on the recommendations
of 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC).
2. The claim of the applicants is that in case of Trained
Graduate Teachers, who were already in service as on
01.01.2006, the respondents have fixed their pay by
multiplying the existing pre-revised pay as on 01.01.2006 by a
factor of 1.86 and adding appropriate Grade Pay, whereas in
the case of direct recruits, the pay has been fixed at the
minimum of `12540 + `4600 = `17140/- on joining on
01.01.2006 or thereafter.
3. It is stated that on one hand, minimum entry pay for
Trained Graduate Teachers appointed on or after 01.01.2006
is prescribed as `17,140/- whereas the Teachers appointed as
direct recruit in the same manner prior to 01.01.2006, like the
applicants, their pay has been fixed as per Rule 7 of Railway
Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, and in accordance with
Fitment Table annexed with the rules by applying 1.86
formula as on 01.01.2006 ignoring the long service rendered
by the applicants, and thus the pay of newly recruited persons
on the same post is much higher than the applicants. The
applicants have accordingly filed this O.A. seeking for the
following reliefs:-
"(a) Quash and set aside the impugned orders dated
10.10.2013 and circular dated 10.10.2011 to the extent that
they have been applied to the Applicants.
(b) Direct the Respondents to issue necessary instructions
granting the applicants the minimum pay of Rs.13860/- plus
Grade Pay of Rs.4600 making the basic pay of Rs.18460/- as
per the fixation table for Rs.7450/- with bunching being done
as applicable, with effect from 1.1.2006.
(c) Without prejudice to the above, the Applicants be granted
at least the minimum of Rs.12,540/- and the Grade Pay of
Rs.4600/- making it Rs.17,140/- with effect from 1.1.2006.
(d) Direct the respondents to grant the Applicants the arrears
of pay from 1.1.2006 with interest thereon as applicable at
Government rates.
(e) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may be
pleased to grant."
4. The applicants have relied upon the judgment dated
27.03.2015 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No.98/2014 with
O.A. No.107/2014 & O.A. No.111/2014. The relevant extract
of the judgment is as under:-
"4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow these
OAs and declare that the discrimination in granting the pay
scales to the directly recruited Staff Nurses prior to
01.01.2006 and after 01.01.2006 is in violation of Articles 14,
16 and 39 (d) of the Constitution of India. We, therefore,
direct the Respondents to treat the applicants at par with the
Direct Recruit Staff Nurses appointed after 01.01.2006 and
grant the PB 2 scale of Rs.9300-34800 with the grade pay of
Rs.4600 with effect from 01.01.2006 and fix their pay
accordingly. The Applicants are also entitled for all
consequential benefits including arrears of pay and
allowances with up to date interest at rate applicable to GPF
deposits. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with,
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs."
5. This judgment was challenged before the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No.8058/2015 titled Union of
India v. Malbika Deb Gupta. The said Writ Petition along-
with bunch of Petitions on the same subject was dismissed by
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated 04.11.2016
with the following observations/ directions:-
"14. Resultantly, the writ petitions are dismissed with the
observation that the petitioners will pay to the respondents the
minimum computation under clause (i) to clause (A) to Rule 7
and then compute the minimum pay applicable with reference
to the pay band plus grade pay applicable to the revised pay
scales as mentioned in Section II of Part B of the First
Schedule to the 2008 Rules. If the net resultant figure as per
clause (ii) to Rule 7 A is higher, then the respondents would
be entitled to benefit of sub-clause (ii) to Rule 7 Clause (A) of
the 2008 Rules.
15. This order will be implemented within 2 months from the
date on which a copy of the order is received by the
petitioners."
A Review Application No.199/2017 filed there-against also
came to be dismissed vide order dated 17.05.2017. The said
judgment has attained finality.
6.  In Government of NCT of Delhi & another v. Somvir Rana
(TGT ENG) & others, an S.L.P. filed with Diary No.
(s)23663/2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, considering the
question of finality of the judgments and denial of similar
relief to others vide its order dated 01.09.2017, held as under:-
" Delay condoned.
We find that there are several matters in which the aggrieved
employees have been going to the Tribunal, then to the High
Court and thereafter those matters are brought before this
Court at the instance of the Union of India/NCT of Delhi.
Once the question, in principle, has been settled, it is only
appropriate on the part of the Government of India to issue a
circular so that it will save the time of the Court and the
Administrative Departments apart from avoiding unnecessary
and avoidable expenditure.
The present situation is that the stepping up is available only
to those who have approached the Court. But since the issue
has otherwise become final, we direct the Government of
India to immediately look into the matter and issue
appropriate orders for granting the pay scale so that people
need not unnecessarily travel either to the Tribunal or the
High Court or this Court.
With the above observations and directions, the special leave
petitioners are dismissed."
7. It is not in dispute that the controversy involved in the
present O.A. is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.
This O.A. is accordingly allowed. The respondents are
directed to fix the salary of the applicants at the entry level of
`17140/-w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and arrears be paid with effect from
the date of filing of this O.A. within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.