Managing Committee, Sr. Sec. Hanwant School, Jodhpur v. State of Raj & Ors.

Mr Anuj Kala, for the petitioner/s. Mr B.M. Bohra, for the respondents. Mr. G.R. Kall, Govt. Counsel. ... To assail validity, propriety and correctness of the judgment dated 8.8.1997 passed by the Rajasthan Non-government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur this petition for writ is preferred. The facts necessary to be noticed to adjudicate the issue involved in this petition for writ are that the respondent – Laxmi Narayan Sharma was employed with the petitioner, an aided educational institution, as Teacher Gr.III on 13.8.1976. After completion of the period of probation he was confirmed on the post concerned w.e.f. 17.8.1978. A promotion to the post of Teacher Gr.II was accorded to him under an order dated

13.6.1991. On attaining the age of superannuation respondent Sh. Laxmi Narayan Sharma stood retired from service on 31.7.1996. By way of filing an application as per the provisions of Section 21 of the Rajasthan Non-government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 Sh. Laxmi Narayan Sharma claimed gratuity and also selection grades as prescribed 2 under the notification dated 25.1.1992 issued by the Government of Rajasthan. The Tribunal by the judgment impugned accepted the application by directing the present petitioner to make payment of gratuity to respondent Sh. Laxmi Narayan and also to allow selection grades as per the provisions of Government of Rajasthan notification

25.1.1992. While assailing validity of the judgment dated 8.8.1997 passed by the Rajasthan Non-government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 can not be made applicable upon the respondent employee in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers' Association Vs. Administrative Officer & Ors. {reported in 2004(1) SCC 755}. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the notification dated 25.1.1992 could have not been made applicable upon the petitioner – institution as the same is a recognized aided institution and not a government institution. As a matter of fact, both the contentions raised by the petitioner are no more res integra in view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relating to the issues involved in present case. In Rajasthan Welfare Society Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 3 2005 (1) WLC 668 Hon'ble Supreme Court while examining the issue regarding payment of gratuity to the teachers working with the educational institutions in the State of Rajasthan held that the teachers working with such institutions are entitled for gratuity as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as the same is made applicable by Rule 82 of the Rajasthan Non-government Educational Institutions Rules, 1993. Relevant portion of the judgment referred above reads as follows: “The entitlement of the employees of the aided educational institution to gratuity cannot be called in question in view of the provisions contained in Section 16 of the Act and Rule 82 made by the State Government in exercise of its rule making power. The teachers may not be the employees within the meaning of definition of employee as defined in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 but that is of no relevance in view of Section 16 and Rule 82. The decision in Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers' Association v. Administrative Officer & Ors. relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant for the proposition that the teachers are not covered by the definition of employees under the Gratuity Act renders no assistance in the present case to the appellant in view of benefit of the said Act having been extended to the employees of the aided educational institutions. The definition of employee under the Act includes teachers and every other employee working in a recognized. We are unable to accept the contention that the teachers of non-Government aided educational institutions are not entitled to gratuity.” The issue regarding applicability of the notification dated

25.1.1992 issued by the Government of Rajasthan for the non- government educational institutions was considered by the Division 4 Bench of this Court in S.R. Higher Secondary School Vs. Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur & Ors. { RLW 2003 (1) Raj. 530}. In the case aforesaid the Division Bench of this Court in quite unambiguous terms held that mandate of Section 29 is that the scale of pay except compensatory allowances with respect to all the employees of an aided institution shall not be less than those prescribed for the staff belonging to similar categories in government institutions. The Division Bench also held that the grant of selection grades is nothing but prescription of higher pay scales, and therefore, in view of Section 29 of the Act of 1989 same are also required to be given to employees of the aided institutions. In view of whatever stated above I do not find any error with the judgment dated 8.8.1997 passed by the learned Tribunal that may warrant interference of this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this petition for writ is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '