Disposed

Saint Meera Brotherhood Society v. Raj.Non Govt.Edu.Institution Tribunal

Rajasthan HC19 May 2023CW/2966/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a tribunal order reinstating a teacher who was terminated for missing a deadline to refund salary. The High Court noted reinstatement is impossible due to the respondent's superannuation age and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 4,00,000 as compensation.

What did the court decide?

Directing the petitioner to pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 to the respondent within six weeks, with 6% interest for delay.

Saint Meera Brotherhood Society Vs Raj.Non… — Maintenance and Alimony | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/011359]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2966/1994

¶4

Saint Meera Brotherhood Society, Meera Bhawan, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur through its Honorary Administrator Shri Vasudev Nagpal aged about 61 years S/o Shri Naraindas

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur through its Presiding Officer

¶8

Jagdish Singh S/o Shri Sarjeet Singh R/o 8/150, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur

¶9

State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Education Department, Jaipur

¶10

Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner

¶11

District Education Officer-I, Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	R.K. Mathur, Sr. Adv. with
	Mr.	Aditya Kumar Mathur, Adv.
	Mr.	S. Zakawat Ali, Addl. GC

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶15

Order

¶16

19/05/2023

¶17

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-Saint Meera Brotherhood Society (for short ‘the Society’) against the impugned judgment dated 13.05.1994 passed by the Rajasthan NonGovernment Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in case No. 19/93 by which termination order dated 20.04.1993 has been quashed and the petitioner has been directed to reinstate respondent No. 2 back in services.

[2023/RJJP/011359]

[CW-2966/1994]

(2 of 5)

Counsel for the petitioner Society submits that the respondent No.2 along with other teachers went on strike and did not come back in spite of request made by the Management of the Society, hence a decision was taken to terminate the services of such employees. At the time of passing of this order, salary of three months was paid to all such teachers. Counsel submits that subsequently by the intervention of the higher authorities, the matter was settled on 03.05.1993 and it was agreed that all such teachers would refund the received salary on or before 07.05.1993 and they would be reinstated back in service. Counsel submits that respondent No. 2 failed to deposit the received salary within the stipulated time, hence on 08.05.1993, his services were terminated. Counsel submits that the respondent No. 2 was at fault, that is why, the decision was taken by the Management to dispense with his services. Counsel submits that the respondent No. 2 assailed the aforesaid order before the Tribunal by way of filing an appeal under the provisions of the Rajasthan NonGovernment Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act of 1989’) and the same has been allowed vide impugned judgment dated 13.05.1994 and the impugned termination order has been quashed and set aside with direction to the petitioner to reinstate him back in service. Counsel submits that the judgment passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable in the eye of law looking to the facts and circumstances narrated above. Counsel further submits that now services reinstatement is not possible as the respondent No. 2 has already crossed the age of superannuation and now his age is more than 75 years.

[2023/RJJP/011359]

[CW-2966/1994]

(3 of 5)

Per contra, counsel for the respondent No. 2 and the State opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted the mandatory provisions contained under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and Rule 39 of the Rules of 1993 were not followed and the impugned orders of termination were passed, which were rightly quashed and set aside by the Tribunal by passing a reasoned and cogent order hence interference of this Court is not warranted. However, counsel for the respondents submitted that now the respondent No. 2 has crossed the age of superannuation and at present his age is more than 75 years, so this petition may be disposed of by passing appropriate orders granting him suitable amount of compensation.

¶26

Heard and considered the submissions made at the bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. This fact is not in dispute that the respondent No. 2 alongwith other employees of the Institution went on strike for redressal of their grievance and the Management took a decision to dispense with services of all such teachers thereafter by the intervention of the higher authorities, the matter was settled between the parties and it was agreed that if the salary of three months which was received by them at the time of termination of their services is refunded within a period of three days i.e. till 07.05.1993 then they would be taken back in service.

¶27

Here in the instant case, the respondent No. 2 failed to refund the received salary within the short stipulated time of three days, hence immediately on the next day i.e. on 08.05.1993, the petitioner again terminated the services of the respondent No. 2. Such action on the part of the petitioner-Management was not

[2023/RJJP/011359]

[CW-2966/1994]

(4 of 5)

warranted as the time to return the received salary was too short. The petitioner-Management could have extended the time and could have sought explanation from the respondent No. 2 but instead of doing the aforesaid, the impugned action was taken by which services of the respondent No. 2 have been terminated. After considering the factual matrix of the matter, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was violation of the provisions contained under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and Rule 39 of the Rules of 1993 and finally the impugned orders were quashed with direction to the Management to reinstate back the respondent No. 2 in service.

¶32

This Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal. Now at this stage, looking to the fact that the respondent No. 2 has already crossed the age of superannuation and at present his age is more than 75 years, hence at this stage, his reinstatement is not possible.

¶33

In order to do complete justice between the parties the matter stands disposed of with direction to the petitionerManagement to pay a lump-sum amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as full and final settlement as compensation to the respondent No. 2 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶34

It is made clear that if the aforesaid amount is not paid within the above-mentioned stipulated time then the respondent No. 2 would be entitled to get interest @ 6% from the date of passing of the impugned judgment till its actual payment. 10. Instant petition stands disposed of accordingly.

[2023/RJJP/011359]

[CW-2966/1994]

(5 of 5)

Stay application and all application(s) (pending, if any) also stands disposed of.

¶39

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶40

MR/1

Saint Meera Brotherhood Society v. Raj.Non Govt.Edu.Institution Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saint Meera Brotherhood Society v. Raj.Non Govt.Edu.Institution Tribunal

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

District Collector Vs Shri Rajkumar S/O Shri Radhey Shyam

Dharma Chand Jain Vs State Higher Education Depors

Ramnarain Mina Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Narottam Lal Vs Judge Labour Court and Anr.

Saudan Singh Son of Shri Ramjill Vs Assistant Engineer

Vishweshwar Lal Saini Vs State of Raj and Ors.