Private School Teacher’s Illegal Termination: P&H High Court Substitutes Reinstatement with ₹34.2 Lakh Compensation

Case Name: Delhi Public School Ghaziabad Society v. Educational Tribunal, Gurugram and another

Date of Judgment: 24 February 2026

Citation: CWP-18427-2024

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that though termination of a teacher in a private unaided school in breach of contractual terms was illegal, reinstatement could not be ordered as the relationship was purely contractual and not governed by public law. In such cases, specific performance of a contract of personal service is impermissible and the appropriate remedy is award of compensation. The Court accordingly substituted the Tribunal’s direction of reinstatement with compensation equivalent to five years’ pay and allowances.

Summary: The petitioner Society challenged the judgment dated 12.12.2023 passed by the District Judge-cum-Educational Tribunal, Gurugram, whereby the appeal filed by respondent No.2 (a TGT Mathematics teacher) against his termination was partly allowed and reinstatement was directed, though the claim for benefits of 6th and 7th Pay Commission was declined.

Respondent No.2 had been appointed as TGT (Mathematics) on 01.07.1993. The school was taken over by the petitioner-Society on 01.04.2016 and his services were continued on existing terms. After more than 24 years of service, his employment was terminated with immediate effect vide letter dated 30.12.2017 stating that his services were no longer required.

As per the terms of his appointment/confirmation, he was entitled to three months’ notice or salary in lieu thereof. It was admitted in the Society’s own note sheets dated 26.02.2018 and 18.04.2018 that neither three months’ notice was given nor salary in lieu thereof paid at the time of termination. His December 2017 salary was also put on hold. After repeated follow-up, the Society released amounts of ₹7,62,452 and ₹1,31,910 on 07.05.2018 and obtained a printed declaration dated 18.05.2018 stating that he had received full and final payment and indemnified the organisation against claims.

Before the High Court, the Society argued that by accepting full and final settlement and signing the declaration, the teacher had waived his right to challenge termination, relying upon Chairman, State Bank of India v. M.J. James. It was further contended that reinstatement could not be granted in case of a private contractual employment.

The Court rejected the plea of acquiescence. It held that the declaration was merely an acknowledgment of receipt of dues and did not contain any stipulation abandoning the right to challenge termination. The Society was in a domineering position, and the teacher had signed the printed proforma to secure payment of withheld dues. There was no conduct indicating intention to abandon his right to challenge termination.

On merits, the Court found that termination was in clear breach of contractual terms since neither notice nor salary in lieu thereof was provided at the time of termination. However, since the institution was a private unaided school and the contract was not governed by statutory provisions, reinstatement could not be ordered. Relying on Kailash Singh v. Managing Committee, Mayo College, Ajmer (2018) 18 SCC 216, the Court reiterated that specific performance of a master-servant contract is impermissible and compensation is the appropriate remedy.

For quantification, the Court noted that the teacher had rendered over 24 years of service. In March 2016, he was drawing a gross salary of ₹55,686; assessing reasonable increments, his monthly gross salary at the time of termination was taken as ₹57,000. Considering the circumstances, compensation equivalent to five years’ pay and allowances was deemed appropriate.

Decision: The Tribunal’s order directing reinstatement was modified. The petitioner-Society was directed to pay ₹34,20,000 (₹57,000 × 60 months) to respondent No.2 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of termination till actual payment, rising to 9% per annum if not paid within two weeks of receipt of the certified copy. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.