Back
2026 Supreme(Raj) 1049
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
ANUROOP SINGHI, J.
Rani Gupta @ Rani Chaudhary W/o Sh. Ganesh Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
Management Committee, Maheshwari Public School - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7701 of 2024
Decided On : 17-08-2026
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Wrongful Termination
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Compensation for Illegal Termination - Superannuation - Where reinstatement is not possible due to the employee reaching the age of superannuation, the compensation awarded must be proportionate and should neither be 'measly' nor a 'bonanza', taking into account the length of service, last drawn salary, and absence of gainful employment. (Para 26, 30)
(C) Burden of Proof - Gainful Employment - When an employee pleads they were not gainfully employed during the intervening period of illegal termination, the employer must prove gainful employment to avoid the payment of full back wages or higher compensation. (Para 25)
Issues: Whether the lump-sum compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 awarded by the Tribunal for illegal termination was shockingly disproportionate given the petitioner's length of service and superannuation.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sunil Samdaria, Arihant Samdaria
For the Respondents: Vinod Goyal, Bhavya Kala, Devansh Sharma
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of illegal termination and initial compensation awarded by the tribunal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. petitioner's argument for full salary based on illegal termination and lack of gainful employment. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. respondent's argument that the initial compensation was justifiable and not automatic. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. illegal termination requires fair and proportionate compensation to avoid benefiting from one's fault. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. calculation of potential loss based on last drawn salary and tenure. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. application of supreme court principles on compensation and burden of proof for gainful employment. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 7. award of rs. 20 lakhs as proportionate compensation for wrongful termination. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
Order :
1. The present writ petition has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 16.04.2024 (Annexure-13) passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') vide which though the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1989') was allowed, thereby holding the termination of the petitioner by the respondent - School, vide order dated 11.02.2015 to be bad in law, however, considering the fact that the petitioner has superannuated and the relief of reinstatement could not be granted, a lump-sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- only was awarded, which was to be paid within one month from the date of passing of the said order.
2. The undisputed facts leading to filing of present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Teacher with the respondent - School w.e.f. 05.07.1995 and was thereafter promoted as Lecturer/Post-Graduate Teacher in 'Hindi' w.e.f. 01.07.1998 and was confirmed as Lecturer w.e.f. 01.07.2000. Several documents have been placed on record to substantiate the length and nature of services rendered by the petitioner for around 20 years with the respondent - School.
3. The Managing Committee of the respondent - School, in its meeting held on 28.01.2015, vide resolution No.6, resolved to discontinue the services of the petitioner on the sole ground that there were no students for the subject ‘Hindi’ which is being taught by the petitioner and thus, the petitioner was served with a notice of three months before her services were terminated.
4. In consequence of the said resolution, a communication dated 11.02.2015 was issued, vide which it was ordered that the services of the petitioner would come to an end w.e.f. 14.05.2015.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Act of 1989, in reply to which, the respondents submitted that the services of the petitioner have been terminated in compliance of Rule 29(2) of the CBSE Bye Laws , which permits termination of the services of a confirmed employee in the event of abolition of a post due to closure of school, a class or reduction in the number of sections of a class or discontinuance of a teaching subject, by giving three month notice in writing or three months salary, including all the allowances.
6. The Tribunal while considering the entire facts placed before it, arrived at a categorical finding that the termination of the services of the petitioner has neither been done in compliance of Rule 29(2) nor in compliance of provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and therefore, the said termination is bad in law. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has already reached the age of superannuation, and she has not rendered any service from the date of her impugned termination till the date of her superannuation, the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- only to be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of the order of Tribunal.
7. While the p
