Manveet Vs Managing Committee and Ors.

It may be noticed that the litigation revolves around the order of termination passed by Guru Gobind Singh Khalsa College, Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur dated 02.08.2010 (Annexure P-4) by which the services of the appellant as Lecutrer in History were terminated by the respondentManaging Committee. The said order of termination was set-aside by the Educational Tribunal, Punjab dated 10.02.2011 (Annexure P-10) after which, the writ petition bearing CWP No. 15400 of 2011 was filed by the Managing Committee, which came to be dismissed on 17.05.2018. While

¶17

KANCHAN 2026.07.06 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶18

CM-407-LPA-2024 in/and LPA No. 177 of 2024

¶19

2

¶20

dismissing the writ petition, certain directions to make the payments were given including the payment of arrears of salary from 02.08.2010 till 15.04.2011. Against the said order, an application for modification of the same was moved, which was dismissed as not maintainable where after, a review petition was filed by the appellant, which has also dismissed and thereafter, the present appeal has been filed along with the application for condonation of delay.

¶21

It may be noticed that the application for modification was dismissed in the year 2023, after which, a review petition was filed, which was also dismissed in the same year, which led to the filing of the present appeal along with the application seeking condonation of delay.

¶22

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, the applicant has been vigilent to seek the remedy though, the remedy of recalling was held to be non-maintainable, which led to the filing of review, which was dismissed and without any further delay, the appeal was filed.

¶23

Keeping in view the above, the applicant has explained the delay in a manner required and, therefore, the present application seeking condonation of delay of 2029 days in filing the appeal is allowed. LPA No. 177 of 2024

¶24

The question which has been raised in the present appeal is whether the appellant is entitled for the salary as per the direction given by the learned Single Judge, which has been granted from 02.08.2010 to 15.04.2011 or she is entitled for the same upto 06.02.2014, when she was actually reinstated in service.

¶25

KANCHAN 2026.07.06 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶26

CM-407-LPA-2024 in/and LPA No. 177 of 2024

¶27

3

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though, it is a matter of fact that on 15.04.2011, the appellant was allowed to join back in the service in pursuance to the order passed by the Tribunal after the order terminating her services was set-aside by the Tribunal but keeping in view the interim order granted by this Court qua the order passed by the Educational Tribunal again, the appellant was not allowed to work and, therefore, the appellant was entitled for salary upto 06.02.2014 when, ultimately the appellant was allowed to re-join the service after the dismissal of the writ petition of the Management.

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondent-Managing Committee submits that the salary for the period she was not rendering service can only be claimed in case the appellant was not gainfully employed during the period, she was not allowed to work, whereas the appellant was gainfully employed from 08.07.2012 till 05.02.2014.

¶30

The said contention has been rebutted by the learned counsel for the appellant that though, it is correct that for a certain period the appellant was gainfully employed but the said period starts from 17.07.2012 to 31.03.2013 and thereafter, from 19.07.2013 till 31.01.2014, which details have already been given by the appellant herself before this Court.

¶31

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

¶32

Once, it is a conceded position that though, initially on 15.04.2011, the appellant was reinstated in service after the termination order passed by the Management was set-aside by the Educational Tribunal but it

¶33

KANCHAN 2026.07.06 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶34

CM-407-LPA-2024 in/and LPA No. 177 of 2024

¶35

4

¶36

is also a matter of fact that after an interim order was granted against the order passed by the Tribunal by this Court, the appellant was not allowed to perform the duties and she was only allowed to re-join in service in February, 2014 i.e. 06.02.2014.

¶37

That being so, the appellant will be entitled for the salary for the intervening period starting from 15.04.2011 to 06.02.2014 by deducting the period for which she was already gainfully employed. Hence, the appellant will also be entitled for the salary starting from 15.04.2011 till 16.07.2012 and thereafter from 01.04.2013 to 18.07.2013.

¶38

Though, the appellant filed a review petition but the same was dismissed without any adjudication upon the said fact. Hence, the direction given by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 17.05.2018 was modified and it is directed that the appellant will also be entitled for the salary from 15.04.2011 till 16.07.2012 and for the period from 01.04.2013 till 18.07.2013. Let, the same be computed and be released to the appellant within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶39

Appeal is disposed of in above terms.

¶40

Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶41

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE

¶42

July 02, 2026	(AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE
kanchan
	Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
	Whether reportable : No

¶43

KANCHAN 2026.07.06 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

Manveet v. Managing Committee and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manveet v. Managing Committee and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajinder Pal Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Others

Ravinder Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Others

Municipal Council , Raman Distt Bathinda Vs Sunehra Ram

Avtar Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Amandeep Vs State of Punjab and Another

Dalip Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Another