CWP-23433-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 130 BALWINDER SINGH EDUCATION TRIBUNAL KURUKSHETRA CORAM: HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. Prabhjot Singh Mann, Advocate TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA The petition has been filed quashing the judgment dated Educational Tribunal balance amount of salary, including allowances, provident fund (PF) on the basis of pay in the pay scale of increments, has been dismissed 2. Learned counsel not challenge has been upheld arrears of salary, allowances, gratuity, dearness allowance the appeal. The due amount has been wrongly declined by the Tribunal on unfounded grounds. 3. Perusal of the relief of arrears of salary, gratuity and allowances, etc., has been inadmissible after considering reasoning: contrary to appointment letter dated 06.11.2020, respondent 2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Decided On: BALWINDER SINGH Versus EDUCATION TRIBUNAL FOR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE AT KURUKSHETRA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Prabhjot Singh Mann, Advocate TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J.(Oral) The petition has been filed, inter alia the judgment dated 01.04.2025 passed Educational Tribunal, Kurukshetra, whereby balance amount of salary, including allowances, provident fund (PF) on the basis of pay in the pay scale of ₹15600 , has been dismissed. Learned counsel, at the outset, submits that the petitioner not challenge the impugned order to the extent has been upheld therein. The only contention is that he arrears of salary, allowances, gratuity, dearness allowance The due amount has been wrongly declined by the Tribunal on unfounded grounds. Perusal of the judgment dated 01.04.2025, of arrears of salary, gratuity and allowances, etc., has been after considering the relevant facts of the case The case that has been set up by appellant is that, quite contrary to appointment letter dated 06.11.2020, respondent IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-23433-2025 Decided On: 13.08.2025 ....PETITIONER(s) FOR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE AT ....RESPONDENT(s) . JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Prabhjot Singh Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari passed by District Judge-cum- , whereby the petitioner’s appeal seeking balance amount of salary, including allowances, provident fund (PF), gratuity ₹15600-39100, and arrears of annual submits that the petitioner does to the extent his termination from service The only contention is that he is entitled to the arrears of salary, allowances, gratuity, dearness allowance, etc., as claimed in The due amount has been wrongly declined by the Tribunal on 01.04.2025, shows that the claimed of arrears of salary, gratuity and allowances, etc., has been held relevant facts of the case, on the following The case that has been set up by appellant is that, quite contrary to appointment letter dated 06.11.2020, respondent FOR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE AT certiorari - petitioner’s appeal seeking , gratuity and arrears of annual does from service to the in The due amount has been wrongly declined by the Tribunal on the claimed held following The case that has been set up by appellant is that, quite contrary to appointment letter dated 06.11.2020, respondent Aman Dua 2025.08.19 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-23433-2025 College has only paid Rs.15,000/ had assured t but they went back on their words. Thus, it has been prayed that respondent College be directed to pay provident fund (PF), Gratuity on the basis of pay in pay scale of Rs.15600/ and present DA (@ allowance & other, as also to pay arrears of annul increments since course of arguments, salary record (annexure 'Z') of all employees, whether 'Contractual', 'Ad hoc' or 'Regular', working in respondent College was directed to be placed on the case file. Dr. Arun on record salary record (annexure 'Z') of the employees along with his affidavit. Perusal of the same goes to show that all employees, working in respondent College, were getting pay of Rs. 15,600/ total Even genuineness of this record has not been disputed nor contents of aforesaid affidavit were questioned by appellant. There is nothing on reco being meted out to appellant by Collage Authorities, who were paying their 'regular employees pay in the pay scale of Rs.15,600/ paying the same amount to appel affiliated to Kurukshetra. Surprisingly, no rule/bye competent authority of Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra has been placed on the case file to show that these made it mandat for private unaided college to pay the same pay scale to its employees, as being paid to regular employees of Aided private College/Government College, affiliated to KUK. committed by appellant were issued to him to improve his conduct, but finding no 2025 -2- College has only paid Rs.15,000/ had assured to pay the remaining amount and to clear the arrears but they went back on their words. Thus, it has been prayed that respondent College be directed to pay provident fund (PF), Gratuity on the basis of pay in pay scale of Rs.15600/ and present DA (@97%) + HRA + Medical Allowance allowance & other, as also to pay arrears of annul increments since beginning with interest @18% per annum. At the outset, it needs to be pointed out that during the course of arguments, salary record (annexure 'Z') of all employees, whether 'Contractual', 'Ad hoc' or 'Regular', working in respondent College was directed to be placed on the case file. Dr. Arun Punyani, Principal. Dronacharya Degree College placed on record salary record (annexure 'Z') of the employees along with his affidavit. Perusal of the same goes to show that all employees, working in respondent College, were getting pay of Rs. 15,600/-, as also special allowance of Rs.1560/ total salary of Rs.17,160 was being paid to these employees. Even genuineness of this record has not been disputed nor contents of aforesaid affidavit were questioned by appellant. There is nothing on record to show that differential treatment was being meted out to appellant by Collage Authorities, who were paying their 'regular employees pay in the pay scale of Rs.15,600/- along with said allowance and were deliberately not paying the same amount to appellant. It has also been noted above that respondent College is affiliated to Kurukshetra. Surprisingly, no rule/bye competent authority of Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra has been placed on the case file to show that these made it mandat for private unaided college to pay the same pay scale to its employees, as being paid to regular employees of Aided private College/Government College, affiliated to KUK. The case of respondent College is that several misconduct committed by appellant came to their notice, repeated warnings were issued to him to improve his conduct, but finding no College has only paid Rs.15,000/- to him as salary, through they o pay the remaining amount and to clear the arrears but they went back on their words. Thus, it has been prayed that respondent College be directed to pay provident fund (PF), Gratuity on the basis of pay in pay scale of Rs.15600/-39100/- 97%) + HRA + Medical Allowance + PF allowance & other, as also to pay arrears of annul increments beginning with interest @18% per annum. At the outset, it needs to be pointed out that during the course of arguments, salary record (annexure 'Z') of all employees, whether 'Contractual', 'Ad hoc' or 'Regular', working in respondent College was directed to be placed on the case file. Punyani, Principal. Dronacharya Degree College placed on record salary record (annexure 'Z') of the employees along with his affidavit. Perusal of the same goes to show that all employees, working in respondent College, were getting pay of also special allowance of Rs.1560/-. Thus, in all 160 was being paid to these employees. Even genuineness of this record has not been disputed nor contents of aforesaid affidavit were questioned by appellant. rd to show that differential treatment was being meted out to appellant by Collage Authorities, who were paying their 'regular employees pay in the pay scale of along with said allowance and were deliberately not lant. It has also been noted above that respondent College is affiliated to Kurukshetra. Surprisingly, no rule/bye-law issued by competent authority of Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra has been placed on the case file to show that these made it mandatory for private unaided college to pay the same pay scale to its employees, as being paid to regular employees of Aided private College/Government College, affiliated to KUK. The case of respondent College is that several misconduct came to their notice, repeated warnings were issued to him to improve his conduct, but finding no to him as salary, through they o pay the remaining amount and to clear the arrears but they went back on their words. Thus, it has been prayed that respondent College be directed to pay provident fund (PF), - + PF allowance & other, as also to pay arrears of annul increments At the outset, it needs to be pointed out that during the course of arguments, salary record (annexure 'Z') of all employees, whether 'Contractual', 'Ad hoc' or 'Regular', working in respondent College was directed to be placed on the case file. Punyani, Principal. Dronacharya Degree College placed on record salary record (annexure 'Z') of the employees along with his affidavit. Perusal of the same goes to show that all employees, working in respondent College, were getting pay of . Thus, in all 160 was being paid to these employees. Even genuineness of this record has not been disputed nor contents of aforesaid affidavit were questioned by appellant. rd to show that differential treatment was being meted out to appellant by Collage Authorities, who were paying their 'regular employees pay in the pay scale of along with said allowance and were deliberately not It has also been noted above that respondent College is law issued by competent authority of Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra has ory for private unaided college to pay the same pay scale to its employees, as being paid to regular employees of Aided private The case of respondent College is that several misconduct came to their notice, repeated warnings were issued to him to improve his conduct, but finding no Aman Dua 2025.08.19 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-23433-2025 appreciable change in his behaviour, his services were finally terminated. Several letters in support of their stand placed on the case file by respondent Co above. No contrary document to this effect was tendered by appellant to dislodge this stand of respondent Colle show his bonafide. Payment of Gratuity A satisfactory service. His services were terminated in the month of April 2022, when misconduct committed by him came to the notice of College Authorities (he used to remain absent from duty and took with hi Therefore, for this reason, he is not entitled to the benefit of gratuity. are concerned, salary record (annexure 'Z') of all employees of respondent College that no such allowances are being paid to any all of them. document, from where an inference can be drawn that employees working in regular basis in respondent DA, Medical allowances etc., apart from pay scale of Rs. 15600 39100/ 4. There is nothing on record to establish that the petitioner is entitled to salary in the pay scale given to regular teachers in or aided College have been getting salary in the regular scale of pay. Facts placed on record about the pay actually being given by the College could not be disputed by the petitioner on the basis of any docu 2025 -3- appreciable change in his behaviour, his services were finally terminated. Several letters in support of their stand placed on the case file by respondent College, have already been referred to above. No contrary document to this effect was tendered by appellant to dislodge this stand of respondent Colle show his bonafide. In so far as grant of gratuity is concerned, Section 4 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 provides that: "Gratuity would be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment, after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years". Admittedly appellant has not rendered five years satisfactory service. His services were terminated in the month of April 2022, when misconduct committed by him came to the notice of College Authorities (he used to remain absent from duty and took with him answer sheets of various students etc). Therefore, for this reason, he is not entitled to the benefit of gratuity. As regards, other allowances as in HRA, DA, Medical etc. are concerned, salary record (annexure 'Z') of all employees of respondent College, as referred to above, makes its quite clear that no such allowances are being paid to any all of them. Further, appellant has not placed on case file any document, from where an inference can be drawn that employees working in regular basis in respondent DA, Medical allowances etc., apart from pay scale of Rs. 15600 39100/-. There is nothing on record to establish that the petitioner is entitled to salary in the pay scale given to regular teachers in leges. Nor has he been able to show that other College employees have been getting salary in the regular scale of pay. Facts placed on record about the pay actually being given by the College could not be disputed by the petitioner on the basis of any document or evidence of any kind. Besides, he appreciable change in his behaviour, his services were finally terminated. Several letters in support of their stand placed on the llege, have already been referred to above. No contrary document to this effect was tendered by appellant to dislodge this stand of respondent College and to In so far as grant of gratuity is concerned, Section 4 of ct, 1972 provides that:- "Gratuity would be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment, after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years". Admittedly appellant has not rendered five years satisfactory service. His services were terminated in the month of April 2022, when misconduct committed by him came to the notice of College Authorities (he used to remain absent from duty m answer sheets of various students etc). Therefore, for this reason, he is not entitled to the benefit of As regards, other allowances as in HRA, DA, Medical etc. are concerned, salary record (annexure 'Z') of all employees of , as referred to above, makes its quite clear that no such allowances are being paid to any all of them. Further, appellant has not placed on case file any document, from where an inference can be drawn that employees working in regular basis in respondent College, are getting HRA, DA, Medical allowances etc., apart from pay scale of Rs. 15600- There is nothing on record to establish that the petitioner is entitled to salary in the pay scale given to regular teachers in the Government . Nor has he been able to show that other College employees have been getting salary in the regular scale of pay. Facts placed on record about the pay actually being given by the College could not be disputed by the ment or evidence of any kind. Besides, he appreciable change in his behaviour, his services were finally terminated. Several letters in support of their stand placed on the llege, have already been referred to above. No contrary document to this effect was tendered by e and to In so far as grant of gratuity is concerned, Section 4 of "Gratuity would be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment, after he has rendered Admittedly appellant has not rendered five years satisfactory service. His services were terminated in the month of April 2022, when misconduct committed by him came to the notice of College Authorities (he used to remain absent from duty m answer sheets of various students etc). Therefore, for this reason, he is not entitled to the benefit of As regards, other allowances as in HRA, DA, Medical etc. are concerned, salary record (annexure 'Z') of all employees of , as referred to above, makes its quite clear Further, appellant has not placed on case file any document, from where an inference can be drawn that employees College, are getting HRA, - There is nothing on record to establish that the petitioner is Government . Nor has he been able to show that other College employees have been getting salary in the regular scale of pay. Facts placed on record about the pay actually being given by the College could not be disputed by the ment or evidence of any kind. Besides, he Aman Dua 2025.08.19 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-23433-2025 could also not dispute that which disentitles him to payment of gratuity under the 1972 Act. Accordingly, there is no basis to sustain the claims raised by him. T is well reasoned, and suf 5. As a consequence, the petition stands dismissed. 13.08.2025 Ad Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? 2025 -4- could also not dispute that he has less than five years’ service in the College which disentitles him to payment of gratuity under the 1972 Act. Accordingly, there is no basis to sustain the claims raised by him. T is well reasoned, and suffers from no error of law. As a consequence, the petition stands dismissed. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? he has less than five years’ service in the College which disentitles him to payment of gratuity under the 1972 Act. Accordingly, there is no basis to sustain the claims raised by him. The impugned judgment law. As a consequence, the petition stands dismissed. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No he has less than five years’ service in the College which disentitles him to payment of gratuity under the 1972 Act. Accordingly, he impugned judgment Aman Dua 2025.08.19 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document