The Rajasthan High Court enhanced the compensation payable to a teacher terminated illegally, from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 20 lakh, observing that the amount awarded by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal was “shockingly disproportionate”.

The Court was dealing with a plea by a Hindi teacher who had served the respondent-school for around 20 years before her services were terminated in 2015 on the ground that there were no students for the subject of Hindi. The Tribunal had held the termination to be bad in law but, as the teacher had subsequently attained the age of superannuation, awarded her lump-sum compensation of Rs. 1 lakh in lieu of reinstatement.

The bench of Justice Anuroop Singhi took note of the fact that the teacher was a permanent employee, had rendered unblemished service for around 20 years, was not terminated for any misconduct and was not gainfully employed between the date of her termination and superannuation. The finding that her termination was bad in law had also attained finality, as the school had not challenged it.

“…keeping in view the mathematical calculation of the minimum emoluments which the petitioner would have earned during the interregnum period, this Court is of the considered view that the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is shockingly disproportionate, and it would be just and proper to direct the respondent-School to make a lump-sum payment of Rs.20,00,000/- to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.”

For context, the petitioner was appointed in 1995, and after around 20 years of services, was terminated by the school in 2015 on the ground that there were no students for her subject i.e. Hindi. This was challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal ruled the termination to be bad in law and awarded compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh to the petitioner.

The present petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the quantum of the compensation. It was argued that she should have been awarded her entire salary and benefits which she would have been entitled to had the termination not taken place.

It was submitted that not granting such benefits allowed the respondent to take advantage of their wrong and legitimized an illegal act.

After hearing the contentions, the Court affirmed the finding of the Tribunal about petitioner's termination being bad in law. However, the Court observed that no one could be allowed to benefit from their own fault

“…it was equally incumbent upon the Tribunal to determine the dues payable to the petitioner, which would have met the minimum respectable yard-stick, not only in monetary terms, but also to pay back the respect and honor which the petitioner would have earned, if she would have rendered the services for the entire period…the quantification of amount to be paid to the petitioner could have been such which would have kept the respondents in a win-win position and left the petitioner high and dry and is shockingly disproportionate.”

The Court observed that the petitioner's monthly salary was Rs. 50,000/- and there was a period of more than 67 months between her termination and date of superannuation. This resulted in a figure of around Rs. 33,50,000/-.

However, the Court held that this figure itself could not be treated as determinative basis for awarding compensation. In this background, the Court took into account other factors, as elaborated above.

The Court also took into account several principles laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases in this regard, and taking guidance from the same, enhanced petitioner's compensation from Rs. 1 Lakh to Rs. 20 Lakhs, payable within 2 months.

Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.

Title: Rani Gupta v Management Committee, Maheshwari Public School and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 343

For Petitioners: Mr. Sunil Samdaria with Mr. Arihant Samdaria

For Respondents: Mr. Vinod Goyal; Mr. Bhavya Kala for Mr. Devansh Sharma, Dy.GC

Click Here To Read/Download Order