W.P.(C) 4602/2022 Page 1 of 6 $~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010111272022 + W.P.(C) 4602/2022, CM APPL. 13784/2022, CM APPL. 12682/2023 GANESH JHA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Khagesh B Jha and Ms. Shikha Sharma Bagga, Advocates. versus ST. MARYS SCHOOL SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Mr Sachin Garg and Mr. Shubham Tanwar, Advocates for R-3. Mr. Romy Chacko, Senior Advocate with Mr. Akshat Singh, Advocate for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 05.08.2026 1. The Petitioner joined St. Mary’s School, Safdarjung Enclave, as a TGT (Sanskrit) with effect from 1st July, 2001. His appointment was initially on probation. By a communication dated 31st March, 2003, the School confirmed him in the post with effect from 1st April, 2003. 2. On 1st January, 2022, the School informed the Petitioner that the number of students opting for Sanskrit had declined considerably over the preceding years. The communication recorded that fifteen students in Class X were studying Sanskrit during the academic year 2021-22 and that none of the students in the then Class IX had opted for Sanskrit as their second 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 11/08/2026 at 11:47:04 W.P.(C) 4602/2022 Page 2 of 6 language. Proceeding on that basis, the management informed the Petitioner that his services as TGT (Sanskrit) would stand relieved with effect from 31st March, 2022. 3. The Petitioner approached this Court assailing the said communication. The writ petition was, however, framed considerably more widely. Apart from seeking continuation in service, the Petitioner claimed arrears arising from implementation of the 6th and 7th Central Pay Commissions and financial upgradation under the ACP/MACP Schemes. He also questioned the minority status of the School and sought directions concerning the continuance of Sanskrit as a subject. 4. The School contested the petition. Among other objections, it maintained that the decision to dispense with the Petitioner’s services followed the discontinuance of Sanskrit in Classes IX and X owing to the absence of students opting for the subject. As regards the monetary claims, the School asserted that the benefits admissible to the Petitioner had been paid. It disputed the computation placed on record by him and contended that MACP was not a prescribed benefit under Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act and, therefore, could not be claimed by him. 5. The controversy has since narrowed substantially. Mr. Khagesh B. Jha, counsel for the petitioner, states that the Petitioner has attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of these proceedings. He, therefore, does not press the challenge to the communication dated 1st January, 2022. The other reliefs concerning the minority status of the School and continuation of Sanskrit as a subject are also not pressed. 6. Mr. Jha confines the Petitioner’s surviving claim to two monetary components. The first concerns the arrears, if any, remaining payable upon 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 11/08/2026 at 11:47:04 W.P.(C) 4602/2022 Page 3 of 6 correct implementation of the 7th CPC. The second concerns financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme. He submits that the School has extended the benefit of MACP to other employees similarly situated and that there can be no justification for denying the same treatment to the Petitioner. The calculations placed by the Petitioner on record are, however, disputed by the School. 7. Mr. Romy Chacko, Senior Counsel appearing for the School, submits that the figures claimed by the Petitioner cannot be accepted without verification of the service and payment records. He, nevertheless, states that the School has no objection to the Petitioner’s pay fixation and the amount, if any, remaining payable under the 7th CPC being verified by an Accounts Officer of the Directorate of Education [“DoE”]. As regards MACP, he further states that if the records disclose that the benefit has been extended by the School to employees similarly situated to the petitioner, his claim may also be examined on the same basis. 8. The course suggested by the parties is appropriate. The dispute concerning the 7th CPC now substantially concerns the correctness of the pay fixation, the amounts actually disbursed and the balance, if any, which remains payable. Those matters can appropriately be reconciled from the contemporaneous service and payment records. 9. The MACP claim requires a slightly different treatment. It is unnecessary in these proceedings to enter upon the question whether the MACP Scheme, by itself, creates an enforceable entitlement against every private unaided minority school. The statement made on behalf of the School permits the surviving controversy to be resolved on a narrower footing. What requires verification is whether the School has, as a matter of 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 11/08/2026 at 11:47:04 W.P.(C) 4602/2022 Page 4 of 6 its own service practice, extended MACP or an equivalent financial upgradation to employees placed in the same service regime as the Petitioner. If it has done so, the Petitioner cannot be treated differently unless there exists a relevant distinction between his case and theirs. 10. The Accounts Officer need only ascertain these facts and work out their financial consequence. He is not being called upon to decide the general applicability of the MACP Scheme to unaided minority institutions. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The DoE shall nominate an Accounts Officer to undertake the exercise directed by this order. The nomination shall be made within three weeks from today. (ii) Within three weeks thereafter, the Petitioner shall place before the Accounts Officer a concise statement of his surviving monetary claim, confined to the 7th CPC and MACP, together with the calculation relied upon by him and such supporting documents as are in his possession. (iii) The School shall, within the same period, make available to the Accounts Officer the Petitioner’s complete service and pay records relevant to the exercise. These shall include the pay fixation statements, salary registers or other records reflecting payments made pursuant to the 7th CPC, and the material necessary to ascertain the amounts actually paid to the Petitioner from 1st January, 2016 onwards. (iv) The Accounts Officer shall verify the Petitioner’s pay fixation under the 7th CPC in accordance with the applicable orders of the DoE, ascertain the amount actually paid to him and determine the differential, if any, which remains payable. If a correction in pay fixation has a consequential bearing 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 11/08/2026 at 11:47:04 W.P.(C) 4602/2022 Page 5 of 6 on the Petitioner’s retiral or terminal benefits, the same shall also be recomputed accordingly. (v) For the limited purpose of the MACP claim, the School shall also place before the Accounts Officer the relevant orders, pay fixation statements or other service records showing whether MACP has been extended to TGTs or other teaching employees governed by the same service conditions and pay regime as the Petitioner. Personal information unrelated to this exercise may be redacted. (vi) If, upon verification, the Accounts Officer finds that MACP has been extended by the School to an employee or employees similarly situated to the Petitioner, he shall examine whether the Petitioner satisfies the same service conditions and qualifying criteria on the date on which the corresponding financial upgradation became due. If he does, the Petitioner shall be extended the same treatment and the consequential financial benefit shall be included in the computation. Any distinction relied upon by the School shall be specifically identified and examined. (vii) If the records do not disclose grant of MACP or an equivalent financial upgradation to any employee similarly situated to the Petitioner, no independent entitlement to MACP shall be inferred merely from this order. The larger question concerning the general applicability of the MACP Scheme is left open. (viii) The Accounts Officer shall afford the Petitioner and the School an opportunity to place their respective records and explanations before him. The entire exercise shall be concluded within eight weeks from the date on which the records of both sides are received. A copy of the final computation, together with brief reasons wherever any item claimed by 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 11/08/2026 at 11:47:04 W.P.(C) 4602/2022 Page 6 of 6 either side is accepted or rejected, shall be furnished to the Petitioner and the School. (ix) Any amount found payable to the Petitioner upon completion of the aforesaid exercise shall be released by the School within four weeks from the date on which the computation is communicated to it. 12. Since the challenge to the communication dated 1st January, 2022 and the other substantive reliefs originally sought in the petition are no longer pressed, this Court has expressed no opinion on the validity of the said communication, the minority status of the School or the issues concerning discontinuance of Sanskrit. 13. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 5, 2026 nk 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 11/08/2026 at 11:47:04