Consumer panel orders Kharar school to pay ₹76K gratuity to former teacher

The school disputed her claim and told the commission that Gupta had voluntarily left her job in March 2012, after which her account was settled. It said she returned to the school after about two years and was appointed afresh as a teacher from April 1, 2014

The district consumer disputes redressal commission directed Indus Public School, Kharar, to pay ₹76K in gratuity to a former teacher, along with 6% annual interest from September 27, 2017, until payment.

The commission also directed the school to pay ₹15,000 as compensation for physical and mental harassment, including litigation expenses. (HT File)

The commission also directed the school to pay ₹15,000 as compensation for physical and mental harassment, including litigation expenses.

The complaint was filed by Kiran Gupta, a resident of Kharar, who claimed that she had worked at the school from April 2002 and was denied gratuity after her services ended in September 2017. She claimed that she had worked for 16 years and was drawing ₹15,000 a month.

The school disputed her claim and told the commission that Gupta had voluntarily left her job in March 2012, after which her account was settled. It said she returned to the school after about two years and was appointed afresh as a teacher from April 1, 2014.

According to the school, Gupta worked until September 27, 2017, when her services were terminated according to the rules after three months’ salary was paid in lieu of notice. The school argued that she had worked for less than five years in her second stint and therefore did not qualify for gratuity.

The commission noted that the case had earlier been dismissed by the district commission, Fatehgarh Sahib, on June 19, 2023, on the ground that Gupta was not a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Gupta challenged the decision before the Punjab state consumer disputes redressal commission. In an order dated October 31, 2025, the state commission held that she fell within the definition of a consumer and remanded the case to the Mohali commission for a decision on merits.

During the proceedings, Gupta produced a salary certificate dated April 17, 2014, showing her salary as ₹15,000 a month. The school relied on records showing her salary in September 2017 as ₹10,537, including perks.

The commission also examined the school’s reply to Gupta’s legal notice, in which it had calculated ₹76,431 as gratuity for 16 years of service, from April 4, 2002, to September 30, 2017, using a basic pay of ₹8,280.

The commission held that gratuity must be calculated on basic pay rather than total salary. It therefore found Gupta entitled to ₹76,431.

The commission partly allowed the complaint and ordered the school to pay the gratuity with 6% annual interest from September 27, 2017, until actual payment. It also awarded ₹15,000 as composite compensation for physical and mental harassment and litigation expenses.