Court-Appointed Committees on Fee Revision and Teachers’ Pay Claims Not Empowered to Perform Judicial Functions: Delhi High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi, Division Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav held that the committees constituted by the Court at the zonal and central levels to examine fee revision and salary payments of teachers in unaided private schools in the national capital cannot exercise judicial functions. Stating that court-appointed committees differ from those established by the government with adjudicatory powers, the Bench ruled that such bodies may only assist the Court in fact-finding and not decide disputes. Accordingly, it set aside the Single Judge’s order delegating these functions and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
The batch of appeals arose from a common judgment dated 17 November 2023 disposing of numerous writ petitions filed by teaching and non-teaching staff of private unaided and minority schools in Delhi seeking payment of salary, allowances, arrears and retirement benefits as per the 6th and 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC). The single judge had recorded that the Directorate of Education supported the teachers’ entitlement under Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. The schools resisted on grounds including delay and laches, limitation of arrears to three years, inability to pay owing to fee restrictions, and alleged irregularities in appointments.
The single judge framed common issues on whether 6th and 7th CPC recommendations apply to recognised private unaided and minority schools; whether paucity of funds could justify non-implementation; and whether the petitions were hit by delay, including in claims for salary arrears and terminal benefits. After analysing precedent, the single judge held that paucity of funds was not a ground for non-implementation, Section 10 was mandatory, and the plea that claims be limited to three years was untenable. The single judge then constituted a “High-Powered Committee” at both zonal and central levels, with specified compositions and timelines, to examine fee revision, compute arrears and decide individual claims, including issues of eligibility and validity of appointments, and to establish a mechanism for future disputes.
Both sides appealed. The teachers contended that, once entitlement and legal principles had been settled, the writ petitions ought to have been allowed rather than remitted to committees endowed with decision-making powers; and that judicial power could not be delegated to committees, particularly without representation of teachers. The schools challenged on additional grounds, including that their right to fix fees under the Act and Rules had not been adequately addressed; that issues such as eligibility, appointment mode, and fee-hike constraints remained; and that a Supreme Court order dated 2 January 2024 in Greenfields Public School v. Anchla & Ors., concerning 7th CPC arrears and fee restraint, had been overlooked.
The Division Bench recorded that “the portion of the impugned Judgment wherein the learned Single Judge has constituted Committees at the Zonal and Central level to deal with the issues of fee hike, payment of salaries to the teachers as per the recommendations of the 6th and 7th CPC, and to consider as to whether the teachers would be entitled to the claims as sought for in the Writ Petitions, actually tantamounts to relegating the judicial functions to the said Committees, which is not permissible in law.”
The Court stated that “Courts, in exercise of their powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can constitute committees but these committees are only fact-finding in nature. Judicial functions cannot be relegated to these Committees.”
Relying on Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust v. State of Gujarat (2023) 13 SCC 525, the Bench observed that “the role of an Expert Committee appointed by an adjudicatory forum is only to assist it in the exercise of adjudicatory functions by providing better data and factual clarity. The role of these Expert Committees does not substitute the adjudicatory role of the court or tribunal.”
Referring to Jamal Uddin Ahmad v. Abu Saleh Najmuddin (2003) 4 SCC 257, it stated that “the judicial function entrusted to a Judge is inalienable and differs from an administrative or ministerial function which can be delegated or performed through authorization.”
The Court recorded that “Judicial functions are to be discharged by the Judges and cannot be delegated to any Committee formed by Courts.” It further noted that “at best, the learned Single Judge could have formed these Committees to furnish a report to the Court and then the Court ought to have adjudicated upon the issues.”
The Division Bench concluded: “This Court is not in a position to sustain that portion of the Order of the learned Single Judge wherein he has formed the Committees at the zonal and the central level to decide the issues of the teachers and the school.”
“There is also force in the contention raised by the schools that several contentions of the schools like eligibility of teachers for claiming benefit as per the recommendations of 6th and 7th CPC, their mode of appointment, the issue regarding rights of the schools to hike fee, etc., have gone un-noticed.”
“In the opinion of this Court, these issues were raised before the learned Single Judge but the same have not been referred to in the impugned Judgment. 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.”
“It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations on the merits of the case and all the rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be adjudicated by the learned Single Judge. With these observations, the appeals are disposed of along with the pending applications, if any.”
Case Title: Renu Arora & Ors. v. St. Margaret Senior Secondary School & Anr. & connected appeals
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:9380-DB
Case Number: LPA 762/2023 and connected appeals
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad; Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav
