CONT.CAS(C)/1770/2026 of PRIYA BHATIA AND ORS Vs A F PINTO AND ORS on 23 September 2026

O R D E R

% 23.09.2026

1. By way of the present contempt petition, the petitioners, who are retired employees of the respective respondents - schools under the same management, allege wilful disobedience of an order dated 13.05.2026 of this Court, passed in W.P.(C) 17221/2025 and connected matters.

2. By way of the aforesaid order, interim directions were passed in a batch of writ petitions relating to claims by employees of several recognised private schools for implementation of recommendations of the 6th and 7th Central Pay Commission. The petitioners are all retired employees of the concerned schools. As far as they are concerned, the interim order required schools to undertake a pay fixation and computation exercise in respect of each employee, and to file a computation statement for each. The operative directions, as far as the retired employees are concerned, are contained in paragraphs 14(vi), and 15 to 18 of the said order, which read as follows: “14. Accordingly, the following interim directions are issued:

xxxx xxxx xxxx

(vi) In the case of retired employees, the concerned school shall compute the revised pay fixation and consequential retiral benefits, including gratuity and leave encashment, wherever claimed and applicable as per the above directions. Actual disbursement of arrears or differential retiral dues shall remain subject to further orders. xxxx xxxx xxxx

15. Since the batch involves a large number of schools and employees, the Court considers it necessary that the next stage proceed on verified figures. Each concerned school shall, within eight weeks, file a computation statement in respect of each Petitioner/employee. The statement shall indicate:

(a) the post held by the employee;

(b) whether the employee is serving or retired;

(c) the date of appointment and, where applicable, the date of retirement, resignation or cessation of service; (d) the pay presently drawn or last drawn; (e) the pay admissible upon implementation of the 6th CPC, wherever independently claimed or necessary for correct 7th CPC fixation; (f) the pay admissible upon implementation of the 7th CPC; (g) the differential amount, if any, for the period prior to 1st December, 2025; (h) the amount payable from 1st December, 2025 onwards on the revised pay structure, wherever applicable;

(i) the arrears claimed separately under the 6th CPC and the 7th CPC, wherever such distinction arises; (j) the differential retiral dues, wherever applicable; and (k) the objections of the school, if any, to the computation in respect of the concerned employee.

16. The computation statement shall be supported by an affidavit of the Principal/Manager of the concerned school. A copy shall be supplied to counsel for the concerned Petitioners.

17. The Petitioners may file their response to the computation within three weeks thereafter. If any computation is disputed, the objection shall identify the precise head of dispute. General objections shall not suffice.

18. Since paucity of funds has been urged as a principal ground of resistance, each concerned school shall also file an affidavit disclosing its financial position. The affidavit shall annex the audited financial statements for the last three financial years and shall disclose, at minimum, the following particulars:

(i) annual fee income;

(ii) salary expenditure;

(iii) reserves, surplus and fixed deposits;

(iv) statutory liabilities;

(v) fee enhancement sought and fee enhancement permitted, if any;

(vi) capital expenditure incurred during the last three financial years;

(vii) funds available in school accounts and, wherever relevant, funds of the society used for or relating to the school; and

(viii) the estimated monthly additional outgo on account of payment of current salary on the revised pay structure.

19. The financial disclosure directed above is intended to enable the Court to assess the plea of financial difficulty in a structured manner. It shall not be understood as acceptance of the contention that implementation of the statutory pay structure is dependent upon prior permission to enhance fee.”

3. At the very outset, Mr. Romy Chacko, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, submits that the statements in terms of the aforesaid order, as far as the petitioners are concerned, will be filed, at the latest by 30.09.2026, after supplying an advance copy to the petitioners.

4. In view of the above statement, Mr. Karan Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners, does not press this contempt petition at this stage, but seeks liberty to make an appropriate application if the aforesaid undertaking is not complied with.

5. The petition, alongwith pending application is disposed of, binding the respondents to the above undertaking. PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026 ‘B’/MK/