IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6453 of 2023 Date of Decision: 18.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ International Sahaja Public School …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Mr. Pranjal Munjal and Mr. Harshit Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Ms. Deepmala Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 7. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs:- “(a) To quash the impugned proceedings held by the Grievances Redressal Committee dated 12.01.2023 (Annexure P-11), to the extent it concludes that the service of respondent No. 7 were illegally terminated by issuing an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly, by issuing a Writ in the nature of Certiorari. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (b) To hold that it was beyond the scope, purview and domain of the Grievances Redressal Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of respondent No. 3 to determine the status of the service of respondent No. 7 more particularly, when respondent No. 3 was acting within the scope and ambit of Annexure P-12.” 2. Precisely, the facts, as emerge from the pleadings, adduced on record by the respective parties, are that on 10.05.2019, petitioner-school engaged respondent No. 7 as School Nurse for the period starting from 10.05.2019 to 15.12.2019, as is evident from Letter of Contract (Annexure P-1). Since w.e.f March, 2020, Educational Institutions including petitioner-school came to be closed, on account of Covid-19 Pandemic, petitioner-school did not extend the contract of respondent No. 7 and asked her to vacate the premises because at that time entire staff as well as students had returned to their respective homes. However, vide communication dated 23.03.2020 (Annexure P-2), respondent No. 7 requested school authorities to permit her to stay in school campus on the ground that she, along with her husband and minor children, was unable to go to her native place and as such, she be permitted to live in school premises. Acceding to the aforesaid request of respondent No. 7, petitioner-school permitted her to reside in the portion of accommodation allotted to her. 3 3. Since despite repeated requests, respondent No. 7 failed to vacate the premises, petitioner-school served notice dated 07.07.2020, thereby calling upon her to vacate the premises, but once she failed to do so, petitioner-school served termination notice on the same date (Annexure P-3). After receipt of aforesaid notice, petitioner made complaint to Deputy Commissioner, District Kangra at Dharamshala, on 14.09.2020 for issuing directions/orders to Principal and Management of the petitioner-school to stop further willful violation of provision contained in Pandemic Diseases (Amendment) Act, 2020 and reinstate her in service with further direction to pay her salary. Since no action was taken upon the aforesaid compliant, respondent No. 7 made another complaint to Deputy Commissioner, District Kangra at Dharamshala on 09.03.2022 (Annexure P-4), pursuant to which, notice came to be served upon the petitioner on 31.03.2022. Petitioner submitted detailed reply on 05.04.2022, stating therein that contract of respondent No. 7 was only for six months, which was never renewed. The services of respondent No. 7 stood automatically terminated w.e.f 16.12.2019, whereafter she is not on the payrolls of the school. Before aforesaid reply filed by the petitioner could be taken into consideration by the Deputy Commissioner, District Kangra at Dharamshala, respondent No. 7 made another 4 complaint dated 19.09.2022 (Annexure P-8) to Deputy Commissioner, District Kangra at Dharamshala. 4. Taking note of aforesaid various complaints made by respondent No. 7, Deputy Commissioner, District Kangra at Dharamshala, proceeded to constitute a Grievance Redressal Committee under his chairmanship. In its meeting held on 12.01.2023 (Annexure P-11), though Committee held that it does not have any statutory powers to order reinstatement, rather complainant should approach the competent labour authority for redressal of his grievance under the relevant labour law, but interestingly, it proceeded to set aside the termination of respondent No. 7 and also held her entitled to salary along with other benefits till 10.11.2020 i.e. when instructions dated 27.05.2022 issued by the Department of Higher Education were withdrawn. 5. Though pursuant to aforesaid directions issued by the Grievance Redressal Committee, respondent No. 7 approached Labour Court, Dharamshala, for redressal of her grievance, which is pending adjudication, but since Grievance Redressal Committee, in its meeting held on 12.01.2023, proceeded to hold termination of respondent No. 7 bad in law, petitioner-school has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking quashment of aforesaid proceedings of the Grievance Redressal Committee to the extent it 5 proceeded to hold that termination of respondent No. 7 on 07.07.2020 w.e.f 10.08.2020 was in contravention of the directions issued by the Department of Higher Education on 27.05.2020. 6. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that since Committee had arrived at a conclusion that it has no power to issue order of reinstatement, there was no occasion for it to hold termination of respondent No. 7 bad in law, especially when it is an admitted fact that services of respondent No. 7 had come to an end on account of expiry of contract in the month of December, 2019, whereafter it was never extended/renewed. 7. To the contrary, Ms. Deepmala Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 7, attempted to argue that since vide order dated 27.05.2020, Department of Higher Education had directed petitioner- school to reinstate respondent No. 7, there was no occasion for the petitioner-school to not permit respondent No. 7 to join and retain accommodation and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Grievance Redressal Committee in holding termination of respondent No. 7 in contravention of the directions issued by the Department of Higher Education. She further submitted that pursuant to aforesaid directions, respondent No. 7 has already received salary for the relevant period and now question with regard 6 to reinstatement shall be decided by the Labour Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, where dispute inter se petitioner-school and respondent No. 7 is pending adjudication. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, especially contract dated 10.05.2019 (Annexure P-1), this Court finds that petitioner was appointed as School Nurse w.e.f 10.05.2019 to 15.12.2019. If it is so, there was no occasion for the petitioner-school to retain respondent No. 7 beyond 15.12.2019. Factum with regard to non-renewal of her contract (Annexure P-1) is substantiated from communication dated 23.03.2020, wherein petitioner, while seeking permission to retain the school accommodation, admitted that though none was permitted to stay in school, as per directions of the State Government in the wake of Covid-19 Pandemic, but since respondent No. 7 could not leave the campus well in time, she prayed petitioner-school for permitting her to retain the school premises for some time, which prayer of her was accepted. Otherwise also, bare perusal of complaints filed by the petitioner, if read in conjunction, nowhere suggests that initial contract signed in the month of May, 2019 was ever extended after 15.12.2019, rather in all complaints, she attempted to allege that during Covid-19 Pandemic, she was repeatedly forced to leave the premises. However, interestingly, Deputy Commissioner, District 7 Kangra at Dharamshala as well as Department of Higher Education called upon the petitioner-school to reinstate respondent No. 7, ignoring the fact that her contract with school had already expired prior to filing any complaint, as a result thereof, she was no more on the rolls of the petitioner-school after 15.12.2019. 9. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds that Grievance Redressal Committee, in its meeting, on one hand, itself held that it is not competent to order reinstatement, but at the same time also proceeded to hold termination of respondent No. 7 bad in law. Since termination, if any, of the petitioner is pursuant to her appointment in the school by way of contract executed inter se petitioner and respondent No. 7, appropriate remedy for all intents and purposes was Labour Court and in that regard, no orders could have been passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, District Kangra at Dharamshala. 10. Otherwise also, in light of complaints filed by respondent No. 7 with regard to her forcible eviction from the school premises, Committee could only pass orders against the petitioner-school under (Act), thereby imposing some penalty or directing the petitioner-school to not force respondent No. 7 to leave the premises till the time Pandemic is not over or restrictions imposed by the Government under Pandemic Diseases (Amendment) Act, 2020 are in force. 8 Though issue with regard to illegal termination and non-payment of salary raised by respondent No. 7 is already pending adjudication before Labour Court, which is otherwise competent authority to resolve such disputes, but since Grievance Redressal Committee, while sending respondent No. 7 to Labour Court, has held that termination of respondent No. 7 on 07.07.2020 w.e.f 10.08.2020 was in contravention of the directions issued by the Department of Higher Education on 27.05.2020, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking quashment of proceedings of that Committee to the extent that it has ventured to decide the issue of termination of the services of respondent No. 7, which was otherwise not in its purview, rather such question should have been left open to be decided by the Labour Court. 11. This Court finds that termination of respondent No. 7 has been held to be in contravention of the directions issued by the Department of Higher Education on 02.07.2020 (Annexure P-12), which appears to be have been issued in view of announcement of lock down w.e.f 24.03.2020 due to outbreak of Novel Corona Virus (Covid-19) and in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 14 of HP Private Educational Institution (Regulation) Act, 1997 read with Rules 15 & 16 of Himachal Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulations) Rules, 2003; Corrigendum, 2008 and other enabling 9 provisions of the above Act and Rules. As per the provisions contained in the Act as well as Rules made thereunder, Private School Management/Trust shall neither stop payment of monthly salary nor reduce the existing total emoluments being paid to the teaching and non-teaching staff of their schools in the name of non- availability of funds and arrange the funds in case of any shortfalls from the Society/Trust running the school. In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that prior to coming into the existence of the restrictions/guidelines, if any, issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh in the wake of Covid-19, contract of respondent No. 7 stood expired. First contract arrived inter se parties, which never came to be renewed was w.e.f 10.05.2019 to 15.12.2019. Since after December, 2019, respondent No. 7 was nowhere on the rolls of the petitioner- school and she was only permitted to retain accommodation on humanitarian grounds, there was otherwise no occasion for the Department of Higher Education to pass order dated 27.05.2020 (Annexure P-12). 12. Be that as it may, since this Court is of the definite view that issue with regard to termination and reinstatement could only be decided by the Labour Court, this Court is persuaded to allow the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner to set aside the finding of the Grievance Redressal Committee to the extent it ventured to hold the 10 termination of respondent No. 7 in contravention of the directions issued by the Department of Higher Education on 27.05.2020. Ordered accordingly. Issue with regard to termination as well as reinstatement shall be decided by the competent Court of law i.e. Labour Court, District Kangra at Dharamshala, taking note of pleadings as well as documents adduced on record by the respective parties expeditiously, preferably within six months. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 18, 2025 (Sunil)