E-Paper
HC orders ₹50 lakh compensation to Gurugram teacher couple for illegal termination by school
The couple- Parveen Singh Shekhawat and Ajay Singh Shekhawat- were employed as teachers at G D Goenka School, Gurugram and both were terminated in June/July 2015
: The Punjab and Haryana high court has granted ₹50 lakh compensation to a teacher couple, who was illegally terminated by a Gurugram school in 2015.
The couple- Parveen Singh Shekhawat and Ajay Singh Shekhawat- were employed as teachers at G D Goenka School, Gurugram and both were terminated in June/July 2015.
The district judge, Gurugram, acting as tribunal under the Haryana Education Act, 2003, in December 2017 ordered reinstatement of both the teachers with full back wages/salary along with interest at 6 percent per annum from the date of the termination of service.
The tribunal order was challenged by the school before the single judge bench. However, the plea was dismissed on February 6, 2018.
It was against this order that the school had approached the division bench, the same year, which now has been decided by the division bench of justice GS Sandhawalia and justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan.
The division bench did not agree with the tribunal order of re-instatement and awarded ₹30 lakh compensation to the husband and ₹20 lakh to the wife. However, the high court has made it clear that the amount be paid to both within one month and incase, “needful is not done, the respondents (teachers) will be free to enforce the orders of reinstatement, as directed by the tribunal and claim all necessary back wages.”
The duo appeared before the high court in person and had not hired a lawyer. The compensation has been calculated on the basis of their salaries.
The school’s argument was that on account of the poor performance, show cause notices were issued with a follow up notice on June 15, 2015 and resultantly, on account of failure to furnish their replies, termination order was passed on June 29, 2015. The termination letter was stated to be in accordance with the staff service regulations.
On the other hand, teachers were seeking re-instatement arguing that without any charge sheet, they had been terminated and the school gate had been closed on their faces. Their three children were studying in the school, the entry was also denied to them and school leaving certificates were given and thus, they had been humiliated.
The high court bench found that despite the court asking for the same in February 2020, the school failed to produce the bylaws governing the condition for the protection of the teachers employed with the schools.
“The same having not been produced, it can be safely said that the procedure prescribed under the rules of the state government have been withheld only on account of the fact that it would not suit the appellant (school) as such to produce the said documents as it would expose its illegal action in dispensing with the services of the employees. Thus, on account of the non-compliance with the order of the court, it is justified to draw an adverse inference,” the bench recorded.
The court observed that the 2003 Act provides for procedure of service rules for employees of unaided recognised schools and also provides for the process of initiation of disciplinary action and penalty etc, which as per the rules has to be after the formal enquiry.
In the case in hand, the court found that the procedure was “never followed” at any stage by the school while dispensing with their services. The imposition of major penalty is only to be done by the disciplinary authority with the approval of management committee, but in the case in hand, order was passed by an individual.
The court observed that the school was bound by the rules and provisions of the 2003 Act and tribunal’s order on re-instatement was not “without any basis”. However, court ordered compensation taking note of the fact that seven years have passed and there has been “bad blood” between the management and the teacher couple.
