Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, Rajasthan High Court
Termination Or Removal Order Is Passed Only After Departmental Enquiry: Rajasthan High Court Directs Reinstatement Of Private School Employees Whose Services Were Discontinued Due To COVID-19
|The Rajasthan High Court noted that in case of termination of an employee of a recognized institution, prior approval of the Director of Education or an officer authorised by him, has to be obtained.
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the reinstatement of employees of a private school whose services were discontinued due to the COVID-19 Pandemic.
The Jaipur Bench was deciding a batch of Writ Petitions challenging the Order of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal.
A Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed, “… the position of law is clear that an order of termination/ removal of any employee of a recognized institution can be passed only after holding departmental enquiry/ proceedings and with prior permission of Director of Education, as per the provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and no contrary view has been taken in this regard. Thus, the recent view is against the petitioner-management.”
The Bench noted that in case of termination of an employee of a recognized institution, prior approval of the Director of Education or an officer authorised by him, has to be obtained.
Advocate Gauri Jasana represented the Petitioners while AAG B.S. Chhaba represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur had allowed an Appeal filed by the Respondents under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989. The Respondents’ termination order from the post of Class-IV employee was quashed and set aside. A direction was issued to the Petitioner-Management to reinstate him with continuity in service along-with 50% back-wages and other allowances. The counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondents were engaged on the post of Class-IV employee in the hostel mess of the Petitioner.
Due to COVID-19 Pandemic, the hostel and mess facilities were closed. Thereafter, the post of the staff in the mess facility was abolished and accordingly, the services of the Respondents were discontinued, as the same were not required by the Petitioner. The Respondents-employees assailed this action of the Management before the Tribunal by filing an Appeal and the same was allowed. Hence, the Petitioner was before the High Court, challenging the Tribunal’s Order.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “As per the settled position of law, the provisions of the statute are to be read as they are. Nothing is required to be added or taken away. Here in the instant case, it is clear that consent of the Director of Education or the person authorised on his behalf, was not taken at the time of passing of the termination/order of removal. Hence, the Tribunal has not committed any error in quashing the termination order of the respondent.”
The Court emphasised that reinstatement does not necessarily result in payment of back wages which would be independent of reinstatement and while dealing with the prayer of back wages, factual scenario and the principles of justice, equity and good conscience have to be kept in mind by the appropriate Court.
“Though it is the case of the respondents-employees that they joined their services in petitioner-school, but they were not allowed to work. Be that as it may, they have not produced any material on the record that they remained unemployed during the period of their termination from service, hence, no case is made out for grant of 50% back-wages to them for the aforesaid period i.e. from the date of termination of service till their joining”, it noted.
The Court further observed that the principle and theory of ‘No work no pay’ is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case and hence, the direction issued by the Tribunal for payment of 50% pay is not tenable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside.
“The respondents would be entitled for actual monetary benefits with effect from the date of joining their services and they would be entitled for notional benefits, as if their services were not terminated and they would further be entitled for consequential benefits with effect from the date of order passed by the Tribunal”, it added.
The Court, therefore, directed the Petitioner to reinstate the Respondents in service on the post held by them, at the time of their termination, with continuity in service and all other consequential benefits excluding payment of 50% back-wages.
“The respondents would be entitled to get actual monetary benefits with effect from the date of their joining in services”, it also clarified.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petitions and modified the impugned Orders.
Cause Title- Management Committee & Anr. v. Rameshwar Lal Meena & Anr. (Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19107/2023)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Gauri Jasana and Prateek Kasliwal.
Respondents: AAG B.S. Chhaba, Advocates Rahul Gupta, and Prahlad Singh.