NUTAN BHARTI GRAM VIDYAPITH versus GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

Citation: [2024] 12 S.C.R. 366 · Decided: 02-12-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.K. MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 366 : 2024 INSC 935
Nutan Bharti Gram Vidyapith  
v.  
Government of Gujarat and Anr.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 13958-13959 of 2024)
02 December 2024
[J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the liability of the appellant-private college 
covered under the grant-in-aid scheme of the State Government, 
to pay retiral benefits to the respondent-employee.
Headnotes†
Service law – Retiral benefits – Liability of the  
appellant-private college covered under the grant-in-aid 
scheme of the State Government, to pay retiral benefits to the 
respondent-employee – Respondent dismissed from service 
on account of misconduct – Challenge to – Respondent  
directed to be reinstated as the dismissal was found to be an 
extreme punishment by the appellate authority – High Court 
upheld the order of reinstatement since the respondent had 
already superannuated, however directed the appellant to 
pay back wages to the extent of 75% – In appeal, back wages 
granted to the respondent set aside, however, the appellant 
and the State directed to pay retiral dues to the respondent – 
Thereagainst, the review petitions filed wherein the appellant 
directed to pay the retiral dues – Correctness:
Held: Appellant is an institution entitled to Grant-in-Aid and the 
employees thereof are entitled to pensionary benefits in terms 
of the said Scheme – State directing the reinstatement of the 
Respondent no. 2 cannot be fatal for the Appellant and burden it 
with the retiral benefits of Respondent no. 2 whereas the Scheme 
provides for otherwise – No exception provided in the Scheme 
to enable the State to deny payment of retiral benefits to an 
employee of the Grant-in-Aid Institution under certain circumstances 
and shift the burden on the institution – There were serious 
charges against the Respondent no. 2 which included inter alia 
instigation of students to go on strike, improper behaviour with the  
co-employees, attempt to pollute the atmosphere in the institution, 
* Author
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
367
Nutan Bharti Gram Vidyapith v. Government of Gujarat and Anr.
violation of rules and regulations of the institution and involvement 
in the activities which may cause damage to the institution – After 
inquiry, with a view to maintain discipline in the institution, it was 
found appropriate that the Respondent no. 2 be dismissed from 
service – However, appellate authority found that the punishment 
of dismissal too harsh and the issues could have been resolved 
by way of discussion – Appellant, keeping in view the discipline 
in the institution, thought it appropriate to challenge the same – In 
such circumstances, it cannot be opined that it’s conduct was such 
that it should be burdened with the retiral benefits of delinquent 
employee – It cannot be said that the action taken by the appellant 
against the Respondent no. 2 was without jurisdiction – Impugned 
order passed by the High Court set aside – State to pay retiral 
dues to Respondent no. 2. [Paras 13-16]
Case Law Cited
Educational Society, Tumsar and Others v. State of Maharashtra 
and Others (2016) 3 SCC 512 : 2016 SCC Online SC 93 – 
distinguished.
List of Keywords
Liability of private college to pay retiral benefits to employee; 
Grant-in-aid scheme of the State Government; Retiral benefits; 
Misconduct; Reinstatement; Dismissal; Punishment; Back wages; 
Review petitions; Pensionary benefits; Discipline in the institution.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 13958-13959 
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.07.2022 and 21.04.2023 of 
the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in LPA No. 1456 of 2010 
and MCA (for review) No. 1 of 2022 respectively
Appearances for Parties
Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Taruna Singh Gohil, Alapati Sahithya 
Krishna, Ms. Hetvi Patel, Ms. Navin Goel, Ms. Siddhi Gupta,  
Advs. for the Appellant.
Bhashkar Tanna, Sr. Adv., Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Devyani Bhatt, 
Ms. Dharita Malkan, Alok Kumar, Dhruva Kumar, Ms. Khushboo 
Aakash Sheth, Advs. for the Respondents.
368
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
The Private College1 covered under the Grant-in-Aid scheme of the 
State Government has filed the present appeal impugning the orders 
passed by the High Court2 dated 26.07.20223 and 21.04.2023.4
3.	
At the time of hearing, the learned senior counsel appearing for 
the a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.