Dismissed

S N a S School v. the Presiding Officer Cum Controlling Authority and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Jul 2026CWP/20662/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner-school filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order allowing a teacher's gratuity claim. The single-judge bench held that the Controlling Authority properly found the teacher covered under the Act and that the factual assessments were supported by evidence. Finding no procedural impropriety or perversity, the Court dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Disallowed the writ petition and upheld the order of the Controlling Authority directing the payment of gratuity.

S N a S School Vs the Presiding… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CWP-20662-2026 - 1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

110 CWP-20662-2026

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 10.07.2026

¶5

S.N.A.S MODEL SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL

¶6

… Petitioner (s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

THE PRESIDING OFFICER-CUM-CONTROLLING AUTHORITY AND ANR.

¶9

... Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

¶11

Present: Mr. Pardhuman Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶13

The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 27.02.2026 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, whereby the gratuity claim of respondent No.2 was allowed and the petitioner-school was directed to pay gratuity along with interest @10% per annum from the date it became payable till realization.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that respondent No.2, after serving the petitioner-school from 10.08.1992 to 31.03.2020, had accepted all her lawful and admissible retiral dues in full and final settlement without any protest and, therefore, no gratuity remained payable. It is contended that despite the petitioner specifically raising this defence, the Controlling Authority erroneously allowed the gratuity claim merely on the basis of unsubstantiated assertions made by respondent No.2. It

¶15

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.13 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CWP-20662-2026 - 2-

¶17

is further submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and suffers from non-application of mind. Learned counsel further argues that the direction to pay interest @10% per annum is also unsustainable as there existed a bona fide dispute regarding the alleged liability to pay gratuity. 3) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record with his able assistance. 4) A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Controlling Authority while passing the same recorded a categorical finding that respondent No.2, being a Teacher in an educational institution, was covered within the definition of "employee" under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in view of the settled position of law. It is further observed that respondent No.2 rendered service from 10.08.1992 to 31.03.2020 and, on the basis of the evidence adduced, determined the gratuity amount of ₹1,91,310/-. The Authority has also awarded interest in terms of Section 7(3A) of the Act as the gratuity was not paid within the prescribed period. This Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded by the Controlling Authority are based upon due appreciation of the pleadings and documentary evidence.

¶18

This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India does not sit as an appellate Court to re-appreciate factual findings in the absence of any manifest illegality or perversity. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, violation of principles of natural justice or patent illegality, warranting any interference by this Court.

¶19

In view of the above, I find no merit in the writ petition and the

¶20

same is hereby dismissed.

¶21

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.13 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CWP-20662-2026 - 3-

¶23

Civil miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, are also

¶24

disposed of.

¶25

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE July 10, 2026
SwarnjitS
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶26

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.13 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

S N a S School v. the Presiding Officer Cum Controlling Authority and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S N a S School v. the Presiding Officer Cum Controlling Authority and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Kumar Vs Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court I and Anr.

Sunil Kumar Saini Vs P.O., Gurgaon & Anr.

Kuldip Singh Vs S.T.A.T Pb. and Ors.

Salvinder Singh Chahal Vs the Appellate Authority Under the Payment of Gratuity Act Adsj and Others

Jaswinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Bablu Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, Punjab and Others