SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 892043

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
KANCHAN CHAND – Appellant
Versus
ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY – Respondent
WPSS 123 / 2025



HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE MANOJ KUMAR TI WARI

Writ Petition ( S/ S) No. 123 of 2025

Kanchan Chand --Petitioner

Versus

Army Welfare Education Society

and others -Respondents

With

Writ Petition ( S/ S) No. 436 of 2023

Pradeep Kumar Mishra --Petitioner

Versus

Army Welfare Education Society

through its Chairman and others -Respondents

With

Writ Petition ( S/ S) No. 974 of 2023

Arun Kumar Chaudhri --Petitioner

Versus

Army Welfare Education Society

and others -Respondents

With

Writ Petition ( S/ S) No. 1202 of 2023

Sunita Sharma --Petitioner

Versus

Army Public School, Raiwala

Military Station and Another -Respondents

With

Writ Petition ( S/ S) No. 995 of 2024

Rekha Kapri --Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others -Respondents

With

Writ Petition ( S/ S) No. 810 of 2025

Pradeep Kumar Maurya and others --Petitioners

Versus

Union of India and others -Respondents

With

Writ Petition ( S/ S) No. 1294 of 2025

Bishan Datt Joshi --Petitioner

Versus

Army Welfare Education Society

and others -Respondents

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Advocates: Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate for petitioner(s) in WPSS Nos. 436/2023, 810/2025 and 1294/2025.

Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Advocate for petitioner in WPSS No. 974/2023. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for petitioner in WPSS No. 1202/2023.

Mr. K.K. Harbola, Advocate for petitioner in WPSS No. 995/2024.

Mr. K.S. Rautela, Advocate with Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocate for the respondents.

Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocate for respondents in WPSS No. 1202/2023.

Mr. Manoj Kumar, Standing Counsel for Union of India in connected matter. ----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT

1. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these petitions, therefore they are heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition No. 123 of 2025 (SS) alone are being considered and discussed.

2. Petitioner was appointed as PRT teacher in General B.C. Joshi Army Public School, Pithoragarh w.e.f. 01.05.2019. She was subsequently appointed as Headmistress in primary section of the school w.e.f. 02.02.2024. Her services were terminated by the Chairman of the School vide order dated 06.02.2025. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court challenging the termination order.

3. Mr. K.S. Rautela, learned counsel appearing for General B.C. Joshi Army Public School submits that the School is run by Army Welfare Education Society (AWES), which is registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860; neither the society nor the school is getting any financial aid from Central or the State Government and the school is being run by the Society in self financing mode, from its own resources.

4. It is further contended that there is no administrative or financial control of the State or Central Government over the affairs of the society or the school, therefore, in view of the law declared by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Army Welfare Education Society Vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma and others, reported as (2024) SCC OnLine SC 1683 and also in the case of Dileep Kumar Pandey Vs. Union of India and Others, reported as (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1192, the writ petition filed against school run by AWES are not maintainable.

5. Para 42 of the judgment rendered in the case of Army Welfare Education Society (supra) is extracted below:

“12. In the last, it was pointed out that all the respondents are currently employed at APS No. 2, Roorkee, and their status is on par with any other APS staff member. They are availing the same perks and emoluments available to any APS No 2, Roorkee employee. The basic pay as per the AWES Rules and Regulations was maintained for the teaching staff in accordance with the recommendations of the VI Pay Commission. Furthermore, for the members of the teaching staff, experience of more than 5 years was accounted for with additional increments at 3% of Basic Pay for every

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top