A view of the SC
Credit: PTI Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court directed a Rajasthan school's management to pay Rs 10 lakh as compensation to a teacher whose services were terminated during the probation in 1997 by passing a "stigmatic" order in violation of rules.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih directed the appellants, Bishwambharlal High School (Bagar) led by advocate Dushyant Parashar to pay a lump sum compensation amount of Rs 10 lakh to Atar Singh together with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from February 18, 2016 till the date of payment.
The court had earlier prima facie observed that the order of February 7, 1997 passed by the petitioners against the teacher was stigmatic and, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order of reinstatement.
However, the court was informed that a letter on February 18, 2016 was admittedly addressed by the teacher to the petitioners in which he agreed to accept compensation of Rs 10 lakh by way of settlement. However, the said letter was completely ignored by the petitioners.
"Even today, the counsel appearing for the teacher stated that if he is paid a sum of Rs 10 lakh with reasonable amount of interest, he is willing to put an end to the issue," the bench noted.
As the appellant's counsel agreed to make the payment, the bench allowed their appeal.
"On the payment of the amount with interest within the stipulated time, the impugned order will stand set aside. We make it clear that in the event of the failure of the appellants to pay the amount with interest within the stipulated time of three months, the impugned order shall operate," the bench said.
The appellants were aggrieved with the Rajasthan High Court's division bench order of July 17, 2016 which dismissed a writ petition by them against the order passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur on June 8, 2001.
The Tribunal had allowed the claim of the respondent, Atar Singh, and had held that the order of termination passed against him during the extended period of probation, was stigmatic in nature, and was thus violative of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989.