IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

275 DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL GHAZIABAD SOCIETY ... Petitioner Versus EDUCATIONAL TRIBUNAL, GURUGRAM AND ANOTHER ...Respondents

1. The date when the judgment is reserved January 20, 2026 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced February 24, 2026 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website February 24, 2026

4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or Full whether the full judgment is pronounced

5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not applicable reasons thereof CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Suryaveer Singh Surjewala, Advocate (through video conferencing) and Mr. Karan Ranjha, Advocate for respondent no.2.

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.

The petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari setting aside the judgment passed by the District Judge-cum-Educational Tribunal, Gurugram, dated 12.12.2023, Annexure P-4, whereby appeal filed by the second respondent against his termination from service has been partly allowed, directing his reinstatement; however, the claim for grant of benefit of 6^th and 7^th Pay Commission has been declined.

2. The facts of the case in brief are, the second respondent was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) Mathematics in Chiranjiv Bharati Public School vide letter dated 01.07.1993, Annexure P-3. The School was taken over by the petitioner-Society on 01.04.2016, as also service of the second respondent as confirmed employee on the terms and conditions he was working with the erstwhile School. After about a year and a half, the Society terminated the second respondent from service vide letter dated 30.12.2017, Annexure R-18, informing that his services were no longer required in the School. The order reads as under:

In accordance to letter dated 4th November 1997 of your confirmation issued by Chiranjiv Bharti School, and in conjunction with the Letter of Continuation issued by DPSG dated 1^st April 2016, which states that we are continuing your employment with the existing terms and conditions, we wish to inform you that your services are no longer required in DPSG Palam Vihar.

You are being terminated from your services with immediate effect. DPSG will honour the terms and conditions which govern your services.

2.1 In terms of Condition 3 of the letter of confirmation dated 06.01.2010, issued to the second respondent, he was entitled to three months’ notice or salary in lieu thereof on termination of service. The amount was however not paid to him by the Society at the time of termination, and the second respondent kept on asking for it. The fact has been recorded in the note sheet dated 26.02.2018, which forms part of the record before the Tribunal, Annexure P-2; relevant extract whereof reads as under:



He has served the DPSG-Palam Vihar for 24 years 3 months and 29 days and is eligible for Gratuity Payment.



On December 30, 2017 a termination letter was issued to him wherein it is stated that “you are being terminated with immediate effect.”



We have not given three months’ notice period as required in his appointment letter. As per the clause no.3 of his appointment letter “The school management have the right to terminate your services by giving you three months’ notice in writing or by payment of three month’s gross salary in lieu of such notice.”



His salary for the month of December’17 was put on hold.

2.2 The fact of his pursuing the matter of releasing dues/notice period salary et cetera with the Society is also recorded in note sheet dated 18.04.2018, which also forms part of Annexure P-2; relevant extract whereof reads as under:



It’s been over 3 months since his last working date and till now he has been patiently following up with HR about his dues and have not raised any litigation considering the same it is recommended that his entire dues i.e. 3 months gross salary and gratuity be paid to Mr. Pawan Kumar in his f