$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 649/2018 & CM APPL. 2827/2018 TYAGI PUBLIC SCHOOL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pramod Gupta, Ms. Yogita, Ms. Riya Khandelwal and Ms. Anushka Soni, Advocates. versus DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC, GNCTD with Mr. N. K. Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Anil Bhat, Mr. Saurabh Munjal and Mr. Vivek P. Gupta, Advocates for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 13.07.2026 1. Respondent No. 2 joined the Petitioner School as a Trained Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) on 03rd July, 1995 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Post Graduate Teacher on 01st July, 2001. The dispute between the parties arose in the year 2015. The Petitioner School alleged that Respondent No. 2 remained absent from duty despite repeated directions to This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/07/2026 at 12:02:24 resume her duties and thereafter left for the United States of America, thereby abandoning her service. Respondent No. 2, on the other hand, asserted that she was aggrieved by the failure of the Petitioner School to promote her to the post of Vice Principal, to which she claimed entitlement and which, according to her, had been promised to her. 2. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Petitioner School terminated the services of Respondent No. 2 by an order dated 31st December, 2015, inter alia, on the ground that she had abandoned her duties and failed to resume service. Aggrieved thereby, Respondent No. 2 preferred Appeal No. 45/2016 under Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 before the Delhi School Tribunal. By the impugned order dated 31st October, 2017, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the termination of Respondent No. 2, holding that her services had been terminated without conducting an inquiry and without following the procedure prescribed under the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. Insofar as the claim for back wages was concerned, Respondent No. 2 was directed to submit a representation under Rule 121 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. 3. The aforesaid order of the Tribunal has been assailed by the Petitioner School in the present petition. Today, during the course of hearing, counsel for the parties expressed their inclination to amicably resolve the dispute and bring a quietus to the long-standing litigation. Certain terms of settlement were accordingly discussed, and counsel for the parties, on instructions, state that their respective clients have agreed to resolve all pending disputes on the following terms: 3.1. The Petitioner School shall pay a sum of INR 25,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2 within a period of six weeks from today. The aforesaid This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/07/2026 at 12:02:24 amount shall encompass all claims of Respondent No. 2 arising out of or in relation to her service with the Petitioner School, including arrears of salary, back wages, enhancement of pay, gratuity and leave encashment, etc. 3.2. The aforesaid amount shall not include the provident fund dues of Respondent No. 2. For release of the provident fund amount, Respondent No. 2 shall submit the requisite form(s) before the concerned Provident Fund Commissioner/authority. The Petitioner School undertakes to execute and furnish all necessary documents as may be requested and extend the requisite cooperation for facilitating the release of the provident fund amount to Respondent No. 2. 3.3. Respondent No. 2 undertakes not to initiate any further proceedings against the Petitioner School in relation to the dispute forming the subject matter of the impugned order or any other claim concerning her service with the School. Likewise, the Petitioner School undertakes not to initiate any proceedings against Respondent No. 2 in relation to her service with the School. 4. The aforesaid terms have been read over to counsel for the parties, who, on instructions, confirm that the same correctly record the settlement arrived at between the parties and shall bind their respective clients. The statements and undertakings made by counsel on behalf of the Petitioner School and Respondent No. 2 are taken on record. The parties shall remain bound by the terms recorded herein and the undertakings given to this Court. The counsel state that they have also apprised their clients of the consequences of breach of the undertakings furnished to the Court. 5. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the terms recorded above, the present petition is disposed of. In the event of any This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/07/2026 at 12:02:24 breach of the aforesaid settlement, parties shall be at liberty to take recourse to legal remedies as per law. SANJEEV NARULA, J JULY 13, 2026/hc This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/07/2026 at 12:02:24