SBCWP NO.1400/97. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1400/1997. Riyan International School Versus Smt.Gouri Devi & Anr. Date of Order:- March 5, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Ashwini Kumar Jaiman for the petitioner. Shri V.S. Nain for respondent No.1. **** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Riyan International School assailing the order of the Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur dated 28/10/1996 (Ann.4) by which, application filed by respondent No.1 was allowed and petitioner was directed to reinstate her with continuity in service with all consequential benefits. 2) Shri Ashwini Kumar Jaiman, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent No.1 was merely engaged on consolidated salary of Rs.850/- per month. She on her own given in writing on 15/5/1995 that she was leaving the job on her own choice and SBCWP NO.1400/97. 2 she has received all the dues and by now, nothing is outstanding. It was further stated by her that she is leaving the job out of free will without any pressure. Learned counsel submitted that Tribunal was wholly unjustified in accepting the plea of respondent No.1 that her signatures were obtained on a blank paper and therefore the letter of resignation was not believed. Learned counsel further submitted that in any case, appointment of respondent No.1 was made purely on temporary basis and she had hardly worked for less than a year and that school was not receiving the grant-in-aid. Compliance of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 was therefore not required to be made. Learned counsel in support of his argument cited judgment of Guwahati High Court in Albert Francis Lobo Vs. The Chief Engineer, Flood Control and Irrigation Department, Assam Gauhati and Ors. : 1997(2) SLR 575 and argued that once the dues etc. were received by the employee without any protest, subsequently, such employee cannot be allowed to challenge termination of his/her services as he/she is SBCWP NO.1400/97. 3 estopped from challenging such rights. Receipt of dues would amount of waiver of challenge. 3) Shri V.S. Nain, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has opposed the writ petition and submitted that respondent No.1 merely knows to make her sign; she does not know how to write. Learned counsel submitted that her signatures were obtained on a blank paper and on that, letter of resignation was transcribed by the petitioner itself lateron. Petitioner failed to show before the Tribunal or even before this Court as to under whose writing letter of resignation is written. Therefore, learned Tribunal was perfectly justified in upholding the plea of respondent No.1 that when she went to the school on 16/9/1995, she was asked not to come on school. It is thereafter that petitioner used blank paper on which her prior signatures were obtained. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal has also considered the reply submitted by the petitioner wherein it is alleged that respondent No.1 was not rendering satisfactory services and whenever she was called to attend the school, many of times, found absent and left the school in between. Learned counsel SBCWP NO.1400/97. 4 submitted that all this is happened because respondent No.1 refused to work at the residence of the Principal of the School. Learned counsel in support of his case relied on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Management Committee through Chairman (BRID) Dy. G.O.C. Army School and another Vs. Smt.Pushpa Sharma and others : WLC (Raj.) 2006 (3) 504. It was also a case of unaided school wherein termination of an employee without compliance of provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 1989 was held to be bad in law. 4) Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that Tribunal has not only considered the fact that petitioner failed to prove before it as to under whose writing, letter of resignation was transcribed rather, in reply to the application submitted by respondent No.1, petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 was not rendering satisfactory services and she was wholly absenting from the duties of the school. No satisfactory pleading has been made in regard to the fact as to under whose signatures, letter of resignation was written. SBCWP NO.1400/97. 5 5) I do not find any infirmity in the order impugned in this petition. The Tribunal has taken the view considering all the facts situation obtaining in the matter. Petitioner was required to make compliance of provision of Section 18 of the Act of 1989. 6) Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, keeping in view the fact that respondent No.1 was engaged only on consolidated salary of Rs.850/- per month and she hardly worked for one year & two months, 15 years have gone by since then and petitioner is unaided private school, it will not be proper now to require the petitioner to reinstate respondent No.1 in its services. Ends of justice would be met if petitioner is required to pay a lump-sum compensation to respondent No.1. 7) In the circumstances, petitioner is directed to pay to respondent No.1 a sum of Rs.25,000/- in lieu of her reinstatement towards full and final settlement of her all claims within a period of three months from today. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil