Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharmbir Singh vs Maharishi Markandeshwar ... on 20 December, 2021
CWP No. 21136 of 2020 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 21136 of 2020 (O&M)
Date of decision : December 20th 2021
...
Dr. Dharmbir Singh
................Petitioner
vs.
Maharishi Markandeshwar University,
District Ambala through its Chairman
.................Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan
Present: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for the respondent.
...
H. S. Madaan, J.
As per case of petitioner - Dr. Dharambir Singh, he had been
working as Professor of Physics with Maharishi Markandeshwar
University, Sadopur - Ambala, District Ambala, against a confirmed
post since 5.9.2016 at Mulana Campus and he was transferred to
Sadopur, District Ambala Campus in July 2017, where he worked as
Head of Physics Department. All of a sudden the University stopped
allotting him work and paying salary to him regularly. He had
served a legal notice dated 18.9.2020 copy Annexure P-2, upon the
respondent -University to which reply dated 5.10.2020, copy
1 of 6
Anneuxre P-4 was received, that all the staff members of the
University were made clear in the meeting of May 2020 that some
courses ran by the University had been discontinued with immediate
effect and there would be requirement of nominal staff. Accordingly,
some specific staff members including Dr. Dharmbir Singh had been
told in clear terms to seek their suitable job elsewhere in other
institutions and when the petitioner was asked in that behalf, he
stated that as per terms and conditions of the appointment letter dated
5.9.2016, he would complete whole of the notice period, which
would be complete on 31.8.2020 and on completion of the notice
period, he would leave the service of the University and vacate the
official accommodation allotted to him in the University Campus,
but he had failed to do so. Therefore, Dr. Dharmbir Singh has
approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition,
craving for issuance of a direction to the respondent-University to
allow him to continue his service and allot him work of teaching and
not to discontinue his services in an arbitrary and illegal manner
besides paying the unpaid salary to him.
Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent-
University, which has put in appearance and filed written reply,
contesting the writ petition, stating that the jurisdiction to decide the
present controversy rests with the Educational Tribunal and the writ
petition is not maintainable.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the respondent, besides going through the record.
2 of 6
In the judgment, Management of S.D. Model Senior
Secondary School and another vs. District Judge-cum-Service
Tribunal and another 2014 (13) R.C.R. (Civil) 328, it was held by a
Division Bench of this Court as under :-
23. In view of the above discussion, we conclude
as under:
(i) That an Educational Tribunal constituted in
terms of the direction of the Supreme Court in
T.M.A.Pai Foundation's case (supra), will not
have the jurisdiction to decide issue of payment
of gratuity, as the same is payable to the teaching
and non-teaching staff in terms of the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972.
(ii) In respect of second question, the
notification of the State Government constituting
Educational Tribunal will include all service
disputes arising out of an order passed by the
Management, as appealable to the Educational
Tribunal. Such right to appeal is not arising in
view of the judgment in T.M.A.Pai Foundation's
case (supra), but in exercise of the executive
powers of the State.
(iii) The State Government shall consider
appropriate amendments in the Haryana School
Education Act, 1995 in the light of statement
3 of 6
made by Mr. Poonia before this Court
expeditiously.
(iv) Since the controversy regarding the Forum
for adjudication of disputes relating to payment
of gratuity has been settled now, it shall be open
to the aggrieved persons to seek redressal under
the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in accordance
with law, if the same is availed within two
months from today. The payment deposited by
the petitioners shall be subject to the decision of
the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Since the questions of law have been
answered, the matter be placed before the
learned Single Bench for appropriate decision."
The present controversy squarely falls within the jurisdiction
of the Educational Tribunal. Though learned counsel for the
petitioner has contended that no formal order has been passed by the
Management, which could be challenged in appeal before the
Educational Tribunal, therefore, the petitioner cannot possibly
approach such Tribunal. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent has submitted that the interpretation by learned counsel
for the petitioner is very narrow. It does not mean that any order is to
be passed by the Management against which appeal lies with the
Educational Tribunal. Rather, it means that any dispute between the
4 of 6
employee and Management, except with regard to payment of
gratuity, shall be adjudicated by the Educational Tribunal.
After hearing learned counsel for both the sides, I find that
admittedly, the petitioner had served a legal notice upon the
respondent before filing of the petition, to which reply had been filed
by the University, copy of which being Annexure P-4, categorically
informing him that after expiry of the notice period, his services
stood dispensed with and he should vacate the official
accommodation allotted to him in the premises of the University. The
petitioner having been made aware of that situation, has not chosen to
challenge this information in the form of written reply, in the writ
petition. In any case, this reply can certainly form the basis of his
approaching the Educational Tribunal and the argument by learned
counsel for the petitioner does not hold good.
Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that
the petitioner is a citizen of India and by his services being dispensed
with in an illegal and arbitrary manner, he has got a right to file the
writ petition for redressal of his grievances, notwithstanding
availability of alternative remedy of approaching the Educational
Tribunal. In support of his such contentions, he had referred to
judgment M/s Magadh Sugar and Energy Ltd. vs. The State of
Bihar and others, in Civil Appeal No. 5728 of 2021, decided on
24.9.2021, by the Hon'ble Apex court. However, learned counsel for
the respondent has contended that with the alternative remedy being
available to the petitioner, the writ petition, so filed by him cannot
5 of 6
proceed.
After hearing the counsel and going through the judgment by
learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the present dispute
should be adjudicated by the Educational Tribunal, at Ambala for
proper and effective adjudication of the controversy. Detailed
pleadings by the parties, ought to be there and evidence would be
required to be lead by the parties in support of their respective stands
and accordingly, thereafter the controversy can be decided in a proper
manner. This lengthy exercise cannot possibly be undertaken by this
Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction. As far as the authority M/s
Magadh Sugar and Energy Ltd. (Supra) referred to by learned
counsel for the petitioner is concerned, that had different facts and
the context in which the observations were made, was also quite
distinct. Therefore, this judgment does not come to the rescue of the
petitioner in the present case.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of
relegating the petitioner to the remedy of approaching the
Educational Tribunal, at Ambala, in accordance with law.
( H.S. Madaan )
th
December 20 2021 Judge
chugh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No
Whether reportable Yes / No
6 of 6
