$~77 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010433592026 + W.P.(C) 13377/2026 & CM APPLs. 62232-62233/2026 NEENA MAAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sameer Sharma and Mr. Mayank Yadav, Advocates. versus M S EDUCATION SOCIETY REGD AND ORS .....Respondents Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 14.09.2026 1. The Petitioner is a teacher employed with Tyagi Public School (Sr. Sec.)/Respondent No. 2. Her services were terminated with effect from 31st December, 2021 without obtaining the prior approval of the Directorate of Education [“DoE”], GNCTD. The Petitioner relies upon the directions issued by the DoE to the School for her reinstatement with retrospective effect and calling upon the School to explain the termination of her services without following the procedure prescribed under the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 [“DSEAR”]. 2. Aggrieved by her termination, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Delhi School Tribunal [“DST”]. During the pendency of the appeal, pursuant to the directions issued by the DoE, the Petitioner was reinstated in service with effect from 1st May, 2023. The dispute thereafter 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 15/09/2026 at 13:05:56 survived with respect to her claim for consequential benefits, including back wages for the period between termination and reinstatement. 3. The appeal was ultimately decided by a judgment dated 6th November, 2024. The DST found the termination of the Petitioner to be contrary to the DSEAR and held her entitled to back wages from the date of termination till the date of joining. As regards determination of the back wages, having regard to Rule 121 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 [“DSE Rules”], the Petitioner was directed to submit a representation to the Management of the School. The School was, in turn, directed to decide the representation within four weeks of their receipt and communicate its decision to the Petitioner by way of a speaking order. 4. The Petitioner accordingly submitted her representation dated 16th November, 2024 to the School, along with her bank account statement for the period of termination. Her grievance is that, despite the aforesaid direction of the DST, the representation has not been decided till date. The Petitioner also relies upon the computation prepared by the DoE towards the amount of back wages claimed to be payable to her. 5. Be that as it may, in terms of the directions issued by the DST and the mandate of Rule 121 of the DSEAR, it is for the Management of the School to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim for back wages, having regard to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunil Sikri v. Guru Harkrishan Public School.1 6. Admittedly, the common judgment dated 6th November, 2024 has not been assailed by the School and no stay operates against the directions contained therein. The School is, therefore, required to decide the 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 15/09/2026 at 13:05:56 representation submitted by the Petitioner. 7. In these circumstances, this Court does not consider it necessary to issue notice to Respondent No. 2 seeking their response for securing compliance with the subsisting directions of the DST. 8. Respondent No. 2/School is directed to decide the representation submitted by the Petitioner regarding her claim for back wages, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from today. The decision shall be taken by way of a reasoned speaking order and communicated to the Petitioner. 9. In the event the representation is not decided within the aforesaid period, or the decision thereon does not redress the Petitioner’s grievance, she shall be at liberty to avail such remedies as may be available to her in accordance with law. 10. With the above directions, the present petition is disposed of. 11. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 14, 2026/hc 1 (2022) 16 SCC 85. 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 15/09/2026 at 13:05:56