W.P.(C) 9253/2026 Page 1 of 5 $~94 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9253/2026, CM APPL. 43347/2026 GARIMA PANDEY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. KS Rekhi and Mr. Jai Vardhan, Avdocates. versus DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR. .....Respondents Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 13.07.2026 1. This writ petition assails the inaction on the part of Respondent No. 1/Directorate of Education1 in deciding the Petitioner’s representation dated 15th October, 2025, whereby she lodged a formal complaint against the Principal of the Respondent School alleging that she had been compelled to resign from service. The Petitioner further seeks a direction to the Respondent School to reinstate her in service with all consequential benefits. 2. The controversy arises in the backdrop of the Petitioner’s resignation dated 25th September, 2025, and her subsequent claim that the said resignation stood withdrawn before it could be accepted by the Managing Committee of the Respondent School. 3. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was appointed as PGT (Biology) in the Respondent School in the year 2019 and discharged her duties until 25th September, 2025, when she was compelled to tender her resignation. It is contended that the resignation was not voluntary but was 1 “DoE” 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 18/07/2026 at 11:52:46 W.P.(C) 9253/2026 Page 2 of 5 obtained under coercive circumstances arising out of her disputes with the management of the Respondent School. It is further submitted that, even assuming the resignation to have been voluntarily tendered, the same stood withdrawn before its acceptance and, therefore, never attained finality. 4. To buttress the contention that the resignation stood withdrawn prior to its acceptance, counsel for the Petitioner submits that on the very next day of tendering her resignation, i.e., 26th September, 2025, the Petitioner visited the Respondent School with the intention of withdrawing the same and resuming her duties. However, she was not permitted to enter the school premises. The Petitioner thereafter addressed a representation dated 15th October, 2025 to the DoE seeking its intervention, followed by a reminder dated 11th November, 2025. Despite the aforesaid representations, it is contended that no decision has been taken by the DoE and the Respondent School has continued to prevent the Petitioner from resuming her duties. 5. Counsel for the Petitioner places reliance on Rule 114A of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, to contend that a resignation tendered by an employee is required to be accepted by the Managing Committee within thirty days of its receipt, subject to the approval of the Director. It is submitted that no resolution of the Managing Committee accepting the Petitioner’s resignation was ever communicated to her. Therefore, the resignation never became effective and the Petitioner continues to remain in service, entitling her to reinstatement with all consequential benefits. 6. It is further submitted that the present controversy does not arise from an order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, but from the Respondent School’s refusal to permit the Petitioner to resume her duties despite the withdrawal of her resignation prior to its acceptance. It is, therefore, 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 18/07/2026 at 11:52:46 W.P.(C) 9253/2026 Page 3 of 5 contended that the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 8 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 is not attracted in the facts of the present case. 7. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, counsel submits that even if the Petitioner’s claim for reinstatement cannot be examined in the present proceedings, she would, at the very least, be entitled to gratuity and all other terminal benefits in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, for the period of service rendered by her with the Respondent School. Therefore, the Court should entertain this petition. 8. This Court has considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner. The controversy in the present case essentially gives rise to two questions for consideration: first, whether the Petitioner’s resignation was voluntarily tendered or procured under coercion; and second, whether the resignation stood withdrawn before it came to be accepted by the Managing Committee of the Respondent School. 9. Insofar as the Petitioner’s allegation that her resignation was procured under coercion is concerned, adjudication of the said plea would necessarily require this Court to examine the circumstances in which the resignation came to be tendered and determine whether it was voluntary or the result of coercion. Such an enquiry would involve disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence, which cannot appropriately be undertaken in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Petitioner’s remedy, insofar as this grievance is concerned, would lie before the Delhi School Tribunal. 10. The Petitioner’s contention that the Delhi School Tribunal lacks jurisdiction as the present case does not arise out of an order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank also does not merit acceptance. This Court, in 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 18/07/2026 at 11:52:46 W.P.(C) 9253/2026 Page 4 of 5 Daya Nand Adarsh Vidyalaya v. Deepa Chibber, 2 has clarified that where an employee asserts that she has been unlawfully kept out of service and the management seeks to justify its action on the basis of an alleged resignation, the Tribunal would have the jurisdiction to examine whether such resignation was voluntary, valid and legally effective. The controversy raised by the Petitioner, insofar as it relates to the voluntariness of her resignation, squarely falls within the ambit of such jurisdiction. Accordingly, it shall be open to the Petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy before the Delhi School Tribunal. 11. Turning to the contention that the Petitioner had withdrawn her resignation before it came to be accepted by the Managing Committee of the Respondent School, this Court is of opinion that the said assertion is not borne out from the material placed on record. 12. The Petitioner’s case is that she visited the Respondent School on 26th September, 2025, i.e., on the day immediately following the submission of her resignation, with the intention of withdrawing the same and resuming her duties. However, beyond this bare assertion, no contemporaneous material has been placed on record to establish that the resignation was, in fact, withdrawn. Significantly, no letter, email or any other communication addressed to the Respondent School conveying withdrawal of the resignation has been produced before the Court. 13. Counsel for the Petitioner has also placed reliance upon the communication dated 31st October, 2025 addressed by the Respondent School to the Deputy Director of Education to contend that the Respondent School was aware that the Petitioner did not intend to sever her relationship 2 W.P.(C) No. 1009/2012, decided on 19th September, 2013. 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 18/07/2026 at 11:52:46 W.P.(C) 9253/2026 Page 5 of 5 of employment. This submission also does not merit acceptance. The said communication merely records the stand of the Respondent School that the Petitioner had resigned from service owing to her personal circumstances. It neither acknowledges nor records that the Petitioner had withdrawn her resignation prior to its acceptance. Consequently, the said communication cannot be construed as evidencing withdrawal of the resignation. 14. In these circumstances, this Court is unable to conclude, on the basis of the material placed on record, that the Petitioner had withdrawn her resignation before it came to be accepted by the Managing Committee of the Respondent School. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to grant the relief of reinstatement sought by the Petitioner. 15. Insofar as the Petitioner’s alternative claim for gratuity is concerned, the same is also not examined in the present proceedings in light of the efficacious remedy available under the statute governing the claim. The Petitioner shall be at liberty to avail of such remedies as may be available under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in accordance with law. 16. It is clarified that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the Petitioner’s allegation that her resignation was procured under coercion. All rights and contentions of the parties in this regard are expressly kept open to be urged before the appropriate forum. 17. The writ petition, along with the pending application(s), is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. SANJEEV NARULA, J JULY 13, 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 18/07/2026 at 11:52:46