IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (105) 1. LPA-2771-2024(O&M) Date of Decision: 21.07.2026 Managing Committee Sheikhpura & Anr. --Appellants Versus District Judge exercising the powers of Education Tribunal & Ors. --Respondents 2. LPA-2783-2024(O&M) Managing Committee Sheikhpura & Anr. --Appellants Versus District Judge exercising the powers of Education Tribunal & Ors. --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL. Present:- Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Sheoran, Advocate, Mr. Deepak Goyat, Advocate and Ms. Vaishnavi, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Yatin Sardana, Advocate with Mr. Piyush Sardana, Advocate for respondent no.2 in LPA-2771-2024 and for respondents no.2 to 7 in LPA-2783-2024. Mr. Nitin Kaushal, Addl. A.G., Haryana. *** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI .J (Oral) 1. In the present appeals the challenge is to the order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the prayer for quashing of the judgment dated 24.02.2023, Annexure P-3, passed by the LUCKY 2026.07.28 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement High Court chandigarh LPA-2771-2024(O&M) & connected appeal -2- Education Tribunal, Karnal, whereby the appeal filed by private respondents no.2 to 7 was allowed, directing petitioner no.1-Managing Committee and petitioner no.2-School run by the Committee, to release the benefit of salary, dearness allowance and arrears on account of revision of pay scales, for three years preceding the date of presentation of the appeal, was declined by dismissing the writ petitions. 2. The plea raised by the appellant-Committee that they are not liable to pay the remaining 25% of the salary which is to be paid by the Management to its employees (private respondents herein), on the ground that they had already written to the Govt. to de-aid the institution. 3. Certain facts needs to be mentioned for the proper adjudication of the issue in hand. The appellant was an aided institution receiving grant-in-aid from the Govt. of Haryana. As per the Grant-in-Aid Rules, 75% of the salary paid by the school to the teachers is to be reimbursed by the State and 25% is to be paid by the private management i.e. employer from its own funds. 4. It is a conceded position that the private respondents were appointed on the post of the Teacher on a particular pay scale which they were getting from their initial date of appointment. The said salary was being reimbursed to the tune of 75% by the State and 25% was being paid by the private Management being the employer. 5. In the year 2015, the private Management passed a resolution on 26.12.2015 (Annexure P-4) that they want their institution to be de- aided. The said resolution was repeated on 29.02.2016 (Annexure P-5) but the State of Haryana did not take any action and ultimately in the year LUCKY 2026.07.28 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement High Court chandigarh LPA-2771-2024(O&M) & connected appeal -3- 2018, the private respondents i.e. the teachers were absorbed by the Govt. of Haryana in the Govt. Schools since then they are working with the Govt. of Haryana in pursuance to the Haryana Voluntary State Education Service Rules, 2017 (hereinafter to be referred to as the '2017 Rules'). 6. The question which has been raised is that from the date the resolution as was passed by the Managing Committee in December, 2015 till the respondents were absorbed in the Govt. Schools, the appellant- Managing Committee is liable to pay to the teachers their salaries as per their appointment orders i.e. the salary which was being paid to them prior to the date the resolution was passed by the Management Committee in December, 2015. 7. As the salary was not paid, the employees i.e. teachers approached the respondent-Tribunal claiming the said benefit and the Tribunal allowed the benefit by recording a finding that till the employees have worked with the appellant-institution, they are entitled for their salary as they were getting prior to the passing of resolution by the Management in December, 2015. 8. Keeping in view the fact that the respondents-employees i.e. the teachers were working on an aided post, the 75% of the salary claimed was to be reimbursed by the State and 25% was to be given by the appellant- institution, in compliance of the direction given by the respondent-Tribunal, 75% of the salary has already been paid to the respondents-teachers by the State of Haryana but 25% salary to be released by the Management has not been released so far. 9. The appellant-institution herein feeling aggrieved against the LUCKY 2026.07.28 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement High Court chandigarh LPA-2771-2024(O&M) & connected appeal -4- decision of the respondent-Tribunal filed a writ petition challenging the directions given that the salary which was admissible to the respondents- employees should be paid to them, on the ground that after filing an application for de-aiding the institution, no liability exists with the institution to pay 25% and therefore direction given to pay the salary to the respondent-teachers as per the rules governing the aided institution, is incorrect. 10. The learned Single Judge has considered the said aspect and has upheld the order passed by the Tribunal which means the liability of payment of 25% salary is still fastened upon the appellant-institution. Feeling aggrieved against the said decision, the present appeals have been preferred. 11. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant- institution argues that once a resolution was passed in December, 2015 for de-aiding the institution and the said resolution was sent to the Govt., in case no decision is taken by the Govt., after expiry of 06 months, the institution automatically becomes de-aided in terms of Rule 62 of the Haryana School Education Rules, 2003 and therefore, the liability to pay remaining 25% for the period when the institution is deemed to be de-aided, could not have been fastened upon the appellant-institution. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the records carefully. 13. The question which arises is whether till the date the respondent-teachers have worked in the institution, they are to be treated as employees of the appellant-institution so as to claim the salary from such institution either with grant-in-aid or without grant-in-aid and whether the LUCKY 2026.07.28 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement High Court chandigarh LPA-2771-2024(O&M) & connected appeal -5- institution can claim that after passing of the resolution in December, 2015 the institution became de-aided six months thereafter and no liability of the appellant-institution thereby arises to pay any amount to the respondent- teachers. 14. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has not been able to dispute that even where an institution is receiving grant-in-aid in respect of any post, appointee to such post is an employee of the privately managed committee and the Govt. is not the employer of such appointee as under the 2017 Rules, the Govt. is only to reimburse a portion of salary to the tune of 75% but the private management has to pay full salary to such appointee who is working on an unaided post. Once, the master and servant relationship of the teachers i.e. respondents herein is with the privately managed committee and the appointee, even if the post is de-aided, the liability to pay the salary remains with the employer. The argument which has been raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellant is that immediately upon the de-aiding of the institution, the existence of master and servant relationship between the institution and employees stands terminated, cannot be accepted. 15. Nothing has come on record that services of the respondent- teachers were terminated upon de-aiding of the institution rather, they were only relieved in the year 2018 by the appellants so as to be absorbed with the Govt. Schools under the 2017 Rules. Hence, for the period the salary was not paid when actual service was performed by the respondent-teachers is with the appellants-institution, the direction given by the learned Tribunal that the same will be paid by the appellant-employer to the respondent employees being the employer of the respondent-teachers for all intents and LUCKY 2026.07.28 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement High Court chandigarh LPA-2771-2024(O&M) & connected appeal -6- purposes, is perfectly valid. 16. The next question which arises for consideration is whether the institution's liability to pay the teachers working against the aided posts extinguishes after the institution is de-aided needs to be adjudicated. Once the teachers have been appointed on a set of particular terms and conditions and that too by the institution being their employer, it becomes the duty and liability of the institution to pay such teachers the agreed amount, as per the terms and conditions of their appointment order. The Aided Rules only come to the rescue of the employer to seek reimbursement of 75% of the liability of the institution qua the teachers working against the aided posts and nothing more. It may further be noted that in case of de-aiding of the institution, the Govt. does not become liable to pay 75% of the amount as reimbursement and then such burden of salary has to be borne by the employer till such employees continue in service of the institution. Upon withdrawal of aid by the Govt., master and servant relationship between the teachers and the privately managed institution does not come to an end automatically. Till such teachers are working, they are entitled for the salary either with the aid of Govt. or without to be borne by the institution being employer. 17. In the present case, it is a conceded fact that the respondent- teachers continued serving the appellant-institution till the year 2018 when they were relieved by the institution. Hence, the liability to pay the salary as per the terms and conditions of the appointment order remains with the appellant-institution either with or without the aid of the Govt. Hence, the argument of the appellants that after the de-aiding of the institution, the liability to pay the respondent-teachers extinguishes, cannot be accepted as LUCKY 2026.07.28 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement High Court chandigarh LPA-2771-2024(O&M) & connected appeal -7- up to the date of relieving, the respondent-teachers remained the employees of the appellant-institution. 18. At this stage, learned senior counsel for the appellant has raised an argument that after the aid is given up by the institution in the year 2016, the salary to be paid to the appointees against the aided posts is deemed to be reduced to the minimum required to be paid under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which payment the appellant-institution is ready to pay. It may be noticed that the terms and conditions of the appointment cannot be diluted or amended till the same are actually done by passing an order in case legally permissible. There is no deeming fiction of grant of minimum wage to an appointee who was appointed against an aided post after the grant-in-aid is withdrawn or given up. 19. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits and concedes that after the request of the withdrawal of the grant- in-aid by the institution in December, 2015, no amendment was made in the terms and conditions of appointment or salary of the respondents-employees qua the payment of salary which they were receiving prior to the said request. In these circumstances, it has to be held that employees remained entitled to continue to get the same salary from the employer either with or without aid as per the terms and conditions of their appointment order. 20. Further the Minimum Wages Act cannot be made applicable to the teachers and that too without there being any amendment to their terms and conditions of appointment. Hence, the argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellants that the minimum wages are to be paid after the request was made by the appellant-institution to de-aid the institution, is without any basis and cannot be accepted. LUCKY 2026.07.28 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement High Court chandigarh LPA-2771-2024(O&M) & connected appeal -8- 21. The situation is such that in case, the appellant-institution argues that it has to be deemed that the appellant-institution is to be treated as de-aided institution automatically on expiry of six months after their initial request made to the Govt. in December, 2015, then though total liability to pay the respondents-teachers after six months period will have to be borne by the appellant-institution only. However, it may be noticed that no such stand has been taken by the State and the State rather paid 75% of their dues of the respondents-teachers till they were absorbed by the Govt. in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the appellant is in a better position keeping in view the argument raised and dealt herein before. In case, the argument of the appellant is to be accepted that institution stood de-aided after expiry of six months of their application made in December, 2015 requesting for such de-aiding even then, the total liability of salary of the respondent-teachers would have to be borne by the appellant-institution only. Hence, the said question is left open keeping in view the fact that the State has already discharged its liability qua the respondents-teachers by paying 75% of the amount due till they had worked with the institution before their absorption with the Govt. Schools in the year 2018. Hence, the liability of 25%, which is yet to be released to the respondent-teachers, is to be borne by the appellant-institution. Let the same be done within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. As the respondents-teachers have already filed for execution, the execution petition will be adjourned for a period of 03 months as this Court has granted 03 months time to comply with the direction. With these observations, both the appeals are dismissed. LUCKY 2026.07.28 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement High Court chandigarh LPA-2771-2024(O&M) & connected appeal -9- 22. Judgement is dictated in Open Court in the presence of counsel as no further argument is raised, appeals are dismissed. 23. Pending Misc. applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. 24. A photocopy of this order be placed on the connected file. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 21.07.2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) lucky JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether Reportable: Yes LUCKY 2026.07.28 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement High Court chandigarh