Rajasthan HC Raises Teacher's Compensation from Rs 1 Lakh to Rs 20 Lakh After 20 Years of Unblemished Service Ended Illegally
The Rajasthan High Court held that awarding Rs 1 lakh to a Post-Graduate Teacher whose illegal termination spanned over 67 months was shockingly disproportionate, and directed the school to pay Rs 20 lakh within two months.
Justice Anuroop Singhi, sitting singly at the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, has substantially enhanced the compensation payable to a retired Hindi teacher whose services at Maheshwari Public School, Ajmer were held to be illegally terminated. The Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal had already found the termination bad in law under the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989, but had awarded only Rs 1 lakh as a lump-sum. The High Court, on a challenge brought exclusively by the teacher, found that figure shockingly disproportionate against a backdrop of 67-plus months of lost service and a last drawn salary of approximately Rs 50,000 per month, and substituted Rs 20 lakh in its place.
The Teacher and the Termination
Rani Gupta, also known as Rani Chaudhary, joined Maheshwari Public School, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer as a Teacher on 5 July 1995. She was promoted as Lecturer/Post-Graduate Teacher in Hindi with effect from 1 July 1998 and confirmed as Lecturer with effect from 1 July 2000. By the time her services were brought to an end, she had rendered approximately 20 years of continuous, unblemished service to the school.
At a meeting on 28 January 2015, the Managing Committee of the school passed resolution No. 6 resolving to discontinue her services. The stated reason was that there were no students for the subject Hindi, which she taught. A three-month notice followed, and a communication dated 11 February 2015 formally ordered that her services would cease with effect from 14 May 2015.
No misconduct was ever alleged against her. The sole basis for ending a two-decade career was the claimed absence of student enrolment for her subject.
The Tribunal's Finding and the Compensation Dispute
The petitioner challenged her termination before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur, by way of an appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 1989. Before the Tribunal, the school contended that the termination complied with Rule 29(2) of the CBSE Bye Laws, which permits termination of a confirmed employee upon abolition of a post due to closure of a subject, by giving three months' notice or paying three months' salary with allowances.
The Tribunal rejected that defence. It held, categorically, that the termination was neither in compliance with Rule 29(2) nor with Section 18 of the Act of 1989, and was therefore bad in law. However, since the petitioner had already reached the age of superannuation, the Tribunal concluded that reinstatement was not possible. In lieu, it awarded a lump-sum compensation of Rs 1 lakh, directing payment within one month of its order dated 16 April 2024.
The school did not challenge the Tribunal's declaration that the termination was illegal. That finding accordingly attained finality before the High Court. What came before Justice Anuroop Singhi was only the teacher's challenge to the adequacy of the Rs 1 lakh award.
Arguments on Compensation
Counsel for the petitioner argued that once the Tribunal had found the termination bad in law, the natural consequence was entitlement to the full salary and benefits she would have received had no termination order been passed. To do otherwise, he submitted, would allow the school to benefit from its own wrongful act and would legitimise an illegal termination in practical terms.
He placed on record that the petitioner's last drawn salary was approximately Rs 50,000 per month. Her services were terminated with effect from 14 May 2015, and her date of superannuation was 31 December 2020 — a gap of more than 67 months. He further submitted that the petitioner was not gainfully employed during this entire period, a position the school did not dispute. Counsel relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) & Ors., (2013) 10 SCC 324, and in Kailash Singh v. Managing Committee, Mayo College, Ajmer & Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 216. He also cited a co-ordinate Bench judgment in Mayo College General Council & Anr. v. Smt. Pushpa Sisodiya & Ors., decided on 4 February 2023 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7913/2005.
Counsel for the school argued that despite the petitioner performing no work after termination, she had already received Rs 1 lakh, which was justifiable. He maintained that setting aside an illegal termination does not automatically entitle an employee to full back wages for the intervening period, and cited several Supreme Court decisions arising under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in support. He also stated that the school had offered the compensation to the petitioner, which she declined.
How Justice Anuroop Singhi Reasoned
The Court's reasoning rested on two distinct strands: the settled legal position on compensation following illegal termination, and the specific facts that made the Rs 1 lakh figure indefensible.
On the legal side, the Court drew on Deepali Gundu Surwase for the proposition that where a termination is found illegal and wrongful, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is ordinarily the normal rule. Crucially, that judgment places the burden on the employer: where an employee pleads that she was not gainfully employed during the intervening period, the employer must plead and prove otherwise if it wishes to avoid full back wages. The school had not disputed that the petitioner was unemployed throughout the 67-month period.
From Kailash Singh, the Court adopted the principle that compensation in such cases should be neither “measly” nor a “bonanza” and must be calibrated to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the case. The co-ordinate Bench decisions in Mayo College General Council and in Managing Committee, Maheshwari Public School v. Vijay Prakash Soni (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5849/2001) were noted as illustrations of how lump-sum compensation is determined with reference to the nature of employment, passage of time, age, duration of service, and gainful employment elsewhere.
The Court expressly declined to treat the Industrial Disputes Act cases cited by the school as having any relevance, since those judgments addressed back wages in the specific context of that statute, which was not applicable to the petitioner's case.
Turning to the figures, Justice Anuroop Singhi performed a straightforward calculation: 67-plus months at Rs 50,000 per month yields approximately Rs 33,50,000. He was careful to state that this arithmetic figure was not itself the determinative basis for the award, in keeping with the Kailash Singh framework. But he identified the relevant factors cumulatively: the petitioner was a permanent, confirmed Post-Graduate Teacher; she served for around 20 years without any blemish; her termination was not for misconduct; she was not employed elsewhere after termination; and the school had not contested the illegality finding.
Against all of that, Rs 1 lakh — representing less than two weeks' salary at her last drawn pay — left the school in, as the Court put it, a win-win position while leaving the petitioner high and dry. The Court held the figure to be shockingly disproportionate and the school could not be permitted to take benefit of its own fault.
Outcome
Justice Anuroop Singhi modified the Tribunal's order dated 16 April 2024 and determined the compensation payable to the petitioner at Rs 20,00,000 (Rs 20 lakh). The Maheshwari Public School was directed to pay this amount within two months of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
Should the school fail to make payment within that period, the petitioner will be entitled to recover the amount along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the High Court's order.
The writ petition, along with any pending applications, was disposed of accordingly.