CWP-20667 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 111 S.N.A.S MODEL SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND ANR. CORAM: Present: KIRTI SINGH 1) Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 27.02.202 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, whereby the gratuity claim of respondent No.2 was allowed and the school was directed to pay gratuity along with interest @10% per annum from the date it became payable till realization. 2) respondent No.2, after serving the petitioner 31.03.2022, had accepted all her lawful and admissible retiral dues in full and final settlement without any protest and, therefore, no gratuity remained payable. It is contended that despite the petitioner specifically raising this defence, the C 7-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20667 DATE OF DECISION: 10.07.2026 S.N.A.S MODEL SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER-CUM-CONTROLLING AUTHORITY AND ANR. HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Mr. Pardhuman Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 27.02.202 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, whereby the gratuity claim of respondent No.2 was allowed and the school was directed to pay gratuity along with interest @10% per annum from the date it became payable till realization. Learned counsel for the petitioner respondent No.2, after serving the petitioner , had accepted all her lawful and admissible retiral dues in full and final settlement without any protest and, therefore, no gratuity remained payable. It is contended that despite the petitioner specifically raising this defence, the Controlling Authority erroneously allowed the gratuity claim IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 20667-2026 DATE OF DECISION: 10.07.2026 S.N.A.S MODEL SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL … Petitioner (s) CONTROLLING AUTHORITY ... Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH , Advocate for the petitioner. filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 27.02.2025 (Annexure P passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, whereby the gratuity claim of respondent No.2 was allowed and the petitioner school was directed to pay gratuity along with interest @10% per annum from Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that respondent No.2, after serving the petitioner-school from 10.04.1993 , had accepted all her lawful and admissible retiral dues in full and final settlement without any protest and, therefore, no gratuity remained payable. It is contended that despite the petitioner specifically raising this ontrolling Authority erroneously allowed the gratuity claim IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH filed under Articles 226/227 of the 5 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, petitioner- school was directed to pay gratuity along with interest @10% per annum from that to , had accepted all her lawful and admissible retiral dues in full and final settlement without any protest and, therefore, no gratuity remained payable. It is contended that despite the petitioner specifically raising this ontrolling Authority erroneously allowed the gratuity claim SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.13 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20667 merely on the basis of unsubstantiated assertions made by respondent No.2. It is further submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and suffers from non-application of mind. Learned direction to pay interest @10% per annum is also unsustainable as there existed a bona fide dispute regarding the alleged liability to pay gratuity. 3) through the 4) Authority while passing the same recorded a categorical finding that respondent No.2, being a Teacher in an educational institution, was covered within the defin in view of the settled position of law. It is further observed that respondent No.2 rendered service from evidence adduced, determined the gratui Authority has also awarded interest in terms of Section 7(3A) of the Act as the gratuity was not paid within the prescribed period. This Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded by the Controlling Authority a based upon due appreciation of the pleadings and documentary evidence. 5) the Constitution of India does not sit as an appellate Court to re factual findings in the absence of any manifest illegality or perversity. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any principles of natural justice or patent illegality this Court. 7-2026 -2- merely on the basis of unsubstantiated assertions made by respondent No.2. It is further submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and suffers application of mind. Learned direction to pay interest @10% per annum is also unsustainable as there existed a bona fide dispute regarding the alleged liability to pay gratuity. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record with his able assistance. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Controlling Authority while passing the same recorded a categorical finding that respondent No.2, being a Teacher in an educational institution, was covered within the definition of "employee" under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in view of the settled position of law. It is further observed that respondent No.2 rendered service from 10.04.1993 to 31.03.2022 evidence adduced, determined the gratui Authority has also awarded interest in terms of Section 7(3A) of the Act as the gratuity was not paid within the prescribed period. This Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded by the Controlling Authority a based upon due appreciation of the pleadings and documentary evidence. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India does not sit as an appellate Court to re factual findings in the absence of any manifest illegality or perversity. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any principles of natural justice or patent illegality merely on the basis of unsubstantiated assertions made by respondent No.2. It is further submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and suffers application of mind. Learned counsel further argues that the direction to pay interest @10% per annum is also unsustainable as there existed a bona fide dispute regarding the alleged liability to pay gratuity. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Controlling Authority while passing the same recorded a categorical finding that respondent No.2, being a Teacher in an educational institution, was covered ition of "employee" under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in view of the settled position of law. It is further observed that respondent 31.03.2022 and, on the basis of the evidence adduced, determined the gratuity amount of ₹2,75,355/-. The Authority has also awarded interest in terms of Section 7(3A) of the Act as the gratuity was not paid within the prescribed period. This Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded by the Controlling Authority a based upon due appreciation of the pleadings and documentary evidence. his Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India does not sit as an appellate Court to re-appreciate factual findings in the absence of any manifest illegality or perversity. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, violation of principles of natural justice or patent illegality, warranting any interference merely on the basis of unsubstantiated assertions made by respondent No.2. It is further submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and suffers counsel further argues that the direction to pay interest @10% per annum is also unsustainable as there I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Controlling Authority while passing the same recorded a categorical finding that respondent No.2, being a Teacher in an educational institution, was covered ition of "employee" under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in view of the settled position of law. It is further observed that respondent and, on the basis of the . The Authority has also awarded interest in terms of Section 7(3A) of the Act as the gratuity was not paid within the prescribed period. This Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded by the Controlling Authority are his Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of appreciate factual findings in the absence of any manifest illegality or perversity. The error, violation of interference by SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.13 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20667 6) same is hereby dismissed. 7) disposed of. July 10, 2026 SwarnjitS 7-2026 -3- In view of the above, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Civil miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, are also disposed of. 0, 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : w of the above, I find no merit in the writ petition and the Civil miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, are also (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No w of the above, I find no merit in the writ petition and the Civil miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, are also SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.13 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document