Non-reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1095 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP(Civil)No. 21627 of 2005)

SHANTINIKETAN HINDI PRIMARY SCHOOL  ….       Appellants(s)

Versus

PAL HARIRAM RAMAVTAR AND ORS.                    ….     Respondent(s)  

J U D G E M E N T

K.S.Radhakrishnan, J.

Leave granted.

2. Shantiniketan Educational Trust claiming to be  a minority institution  

is running two primary unaided schools, one in Gujarati medium and the  

other in Hindi  medium, in State of Gujarat.  Respondent nos. 1- 4 were  

working as teachers in those schools.  Their services were terminated on  

05.07.1996  on  the  ground  that  they  had  absented  from  duties  without  

informing the Management which according to the management amounted  

to gross indiscipline.  Against the order of termination of service they filed  

1

Application no. 241 of 1996 before the Gujarat Primary Education Tribunal.  

While they were in service they had filed Application nos. 3 of 1993, 30 of  

1993 and 193 of 1994 before the said Tribunal claiming parity of pay and  

allowances as per government rules applicable to the untrained teachers.  

All  the applications were heard together by the Tribunal and a common  

order  was  passed  on  14.07.2000  quashing  the  termination  orders  and  

directing reinstatement with full salary and other benefits from the date of  

termination till the date of the order with a further direction to pay the salary  

and other  benefits  applicable  to  untrained  teachers  as  per  Government  

Rules, from the dates of their appointment.  The Management filed a Writ  

Petition  being  Special  Civil  Application  No.6918  of  2001  which  was  

dismissed  by  learned  Single  Judge  of  the  Gujarat  High  Court  on  

19.02.2002 which  was  affirmed by the Division Bench vide order  dated  

30.10.2004.  Aggrieved by the same this appeal has been preferred by the  

employer school.

3. Ms.  Manisha  T.  Karia,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

appellant  submitted  that  the  Tribunal  as  well  as  the  High  Court  has  

committed a grave error  in ordering reinstatement  with  back-wages and  

also giving a direction to the Management to pay the salary from the date of  

2

appointment as per Government Rules.  Learned counsel  also submitted  

that  the  appellant  institute  is  a  minority  institution  entitled  to  protection  

under  Article  30  of  the  Constitution  of  India.   Learned  counsel  further  

submitted  that  respondent  nos.  1-  4  were  unqualified,  appointed  as  

temporary teachers purely on adhoc basis on a fixed salary of Rs.724/- per  

month and they were not qualified trained teachers falling under para 6 of  

the Schedule ‘F’ of Bombay Primary Education Rules 1947.  Further it was  

also  stated  that  the  Trust  was  managing  two  primary  schools,  one  in  

Guajarati medium and the other in Hindi medium. Owing to paucity of funds  

and due to lack of  requisite number of students,  the schools had to be  

closed down for the years 1995-96 and 1996-97.  Learned counsel further  

submitted that the direction given by the Tribunal to pay the full salary and  

other benefits to respondents  as per Govt. rules would cause considerable  

financial strain on the schools and might lead to the closing down of the  

schools.  Learned counsel further submitted that respondent nos. 1 to 4  

were untrained and unqualified teachers and the direction given to reinstate  

those  teachers  are  illegal.   Learned  counsel  further  submitted  that  the  

Management had followed relevant rules before terminating the services of  

respondent nos. 1 to  4.

3

4. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, learned counsel appearing for respondent  

nos.1- 4  submitted that the Management has committed a grave error in  

terminating the services of the respondents on flimsy reasons.  Learned  

counsel further submitted that respondents’ services were terminated since  

they  had  approached  the  Tribunal  for  pay  and  allowances  as  per  

Government Rules applicable to untrained teachers.   He also submitted  

that the procedure laid down under the Bombay Primary Educational Act  

and Rules were not followed before terminating the services of respondents  

and  hence  the  Tribunal  was  justified  in  ordering  reinstatement  with  full  

salary and allowances and also giving a direction to the Management to  

revise  the  pay  and  allowances as  per  Government  Rules  applicable  to  

untrained teachers.

5. The  appellant  is  a  recognized  unaided  Primary  School  

governed by the provisions of the Bombay Primary Education Act 1947.  

The 1st Respondent, herein a graduate was appointed as Assistant Primary  

Teacher in the Hindi Medium of the School on 5.6.1987.  2nd respondent,  

who was possessing the qualification of SSC was appointed in the school  

as a Teacher for the course of Handicraft and Book binding on 8.7.1985.  

The 3rd  respondent was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Gujarati  

4

Medium of the school on 22.6.1986 and the 4th respondent was appointed  

on Assistant Primary Teacher in the Gujarati medium on 5.6.1987.  They  

were  discharging  their  duties  without  any  complaint  from  any  quarters.  

Noticing  that  they  were  not  getting  the  pay  and  allowances  as  per  

Government Rules applicable to untrained teachers, they approached the  

Tribunal and filed application nos.3 of 1993 and 30 of 1993 for a direction  

to the Management to pay the salary and allowances as per Government  

Rules.  Apparently, irked by such demand, their services were terminated  

by  the  Management  on  the  ground  that  they  had  absented  from  duty  

without informing the Management which amounted to gross indiscipline.  

The Tribunal after an elaborate discussion of the various contentions raised  

by  the  parties  and  also  examining  the  provision  of  Bombay  Primary  

Educational Act, 1947 and the Gujarat Amendment Rules 1978 came to the  

conclusion that the order of termination was bad since the Management  

had not followed by proper procedure in terminating their services.  Further,  

it  was also found that the respondents were entitled to get the pay and  

allowances as per Government Rules applicable to untrained teachers.

6.    The main contention raised by the Management before us  

was respondents were unqualified to hold the post and also that they were  

5

not trained teachers.  We notice that the reason for termination of services  

was not that they were unqualified or untrained teachers but that they had  

absented from duties.  Assuming that they had absented from duties even  

then admittedly procedure laid down under Clause 13 and 18 of Schedule  

‘F’ of the Bombay Primary Education Rules, 1949 had to be followed before  

terminating their services.  The Tribunal and the High Court had therefore  

rightly held that  the orders of termination of services of the respondents  

was  bad in law.   

7. Rule 106A of the Bombay Primary Education Rules deals with  

the application for recognition.  Sub-rule 2 of Rule 106-A states that every  

application  under  sub-rule  1  shall  be  sent  to  the  authorized  officer  by  

registered post with acknowledgment due together with an undertaking in  

writing that the conditions of employment  of teachers in the private primary  

schools  shall  be  those  as  specified  in  Schedule  ’F’  appended to  these  

rules.   Schedule  ’F’  deals  with  the  model  conditions  of  employment  of  

teachers in the private schools in the State of Gujarat which forms part of  

Rule 106A of the Rules. Clause (v) of sub-rule 4 states that no primary  

school shall be recognized or continued to be recognized unless the rates  

of tuition fee, pay-scales and allowances of the teaching staff shall be such  

as may be approved by the Government from time to time.  Following the  

6

above  mentioned  provisions,  the  Tribunal,  on  facts  found  that  the  

respondents were working as teachers in the School for over ten years but  

they  were  paid  only  a  consolidated  monthly  pay  of  Rs.724  per  month,  

which was found to be not  in accordance with rules. Tribunal in our view  

has correctly come to the conclusion that  the respondents-teachers  are  

entitled  to  get  pay  and  allowances  which  are  applicable  to  untrained  

teachers as per Government Rules.   

8.            Under the above circumstances, we find no reason to interfere  

with the order passed by the Tribunal which was confirmed by the High  

Court.   Further,  we notice that  when this  court  had granted stay of  the  

judgment vide orders dated 13.1.2006, recorded the  statement of counsel  

for the management that it had disbursed Rs. 2 lakhs towards arrears of  

salary.  Needless to say that amount would be adjusted towards salary due  

to the respondents.  Considering the financial difficulties pointed out by the  

counsel appearing for the Management and the fact that the School had to  

be closed down for the years 1995-96 and 1996-97, and considering the  

fact that there were unauthorized absences, we are of the view that the  

respondents  1-4  are  entitled  to  get  only  50%  of  the  salary  and  other  

benefits  applicable  to  the  untrained  teachers  as  per  Government  Rules  

7

from the date of appointment till the date of reinstatement after adjusting  

the above-mentioned amount.  Ordered accordingly.

9.       The appeal is disposed of as above.  

………………………………J. (R.V. Raveendran)

………………………………J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

New Delhi; February 01, 2010

8