Marudhar Balika Vidhyapeeth ... vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3620 Raj

[2023/RJJD/012085]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR (1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6082/2020

Marudhar Balika Vidyapeeth Vidyawadi (Higher Secondary), Kheemel, Station Rani, District Pali (Rajasthan) Through Its Secretary Shri N.c. Mehta S/o Late Shri Chunni Lal Mehta, Aged About 80 Years, Resident Of Rani, District Pali.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. The District Education Officer (Secondary), Education Department, Pali.

3. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

4. Jagdish S/o Shri Moola Ram, Resident Of Near Railway Fatak, Kheemel, Pali.

----Respondents

(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6001/2020 Marudhar Balika Vidyapeeth Vidyawadi, (Higher Secondary), Kheemel, Station Rani, District Pali (Rajasthan) Through Its Secreary Shri N.c. Mehta S/o Late Shri Chunni Lal Mehta, Aged About 80 Year, Resident Of Rani.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. The District Education Officer (Secondary), Education Department, Pali.

3. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

4. Krishna Verma D/o Shri Hanuman Prasad Verma, R/o 43, Aana Sagar, Link Road, Ajmer.

----Respondents (3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6057/2020 Marudhar Balika Vidyapeeth Vidyawadi (Higher Secondary), Kheemel, Station Rani, District Pali (Rajasthan) Through Its

[2023/RJJD/012085] (2 of 10) [CW-6082/2020]

Secretary Shri N.c. Mehta S/o Late Shri Chunni Lal Mehta, Aged About 80 Years, Resident Of Rani.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. The District Education Officer (Secondary), Education Department, Pali.

3. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

4. Raka Jha D/o Shri Rajnikant Sharma, Resident Of Gali No. 1, Tanji Nagar, Ajmer.

----Respondents (4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6682/2020 Marudhar Balika Vidyapeeth Vidyawadi, (Higher Secondary), Kheemel, Station Rani, District Pali (Rajasthan) Through Its Secretary Shri N.c. Mehta S/o Late Shri Chunni Lal Mehta, Aged About 80 Years, Resident Of Rani.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. The District Education Officer (Secondary), Education Department, Pali.

3. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

4. Smt. Darshan Lata Sharma W/o Shri Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Resident Of House No. 387/29, Naya Ghar, Gulab Badi, Ajmer.

----Respondents (5) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6708/2020 Marudhar Balika Vidhyapeeth Vidyawadi, (Higher Secondary), Kheemel, Station Rani, District Pali (Rajasthan) Through Its Secretary N.c. Mehta S/o Late Chunni Lal Mehta, Aged About 80 Years, Resident Of Rani.

----Petitioner Versus

[2023/RJJD/012085] (3 of 10) [CW-6082/2020]

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. The District Education Officer (Secondary), Education Department, Pali.

3. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

4. Meenakshi Arora D/o Narayan Das Arora, 94, Prem Nagar, Shivaji Colony, Sendra Road, Byavar, District Ajmer (Raj.)

----Respondents (6) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3876/2021

1. Managing Committee , Shah Goverdhan Lal Kaabra Teachers College(C.t.e.) Jodhpur, Ummaid Hospital Road, Geeta Bhawan , Jodhpur Through Its Secretary Shri Hari Gopal Rathi S/o Shri Late Shri Kishan Gopal Rathi Age 75 Years

2. Managing Committee, Shri Mashesh Shiksan Sansthan , Opp. Ummaid Hospital Road, Siwanchi Gate , Jodhpur Through Its Secretary Shri Hari Gopal Rathi S/o Shri Late Shri Kishan Gopal Rathi Age 75 Years

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director / Commissioner , Secondary Education , Rajasthan , Bikaner

2. Shri Kamlesh Malpani S/o Shri Ram Niwas Malpani, R/o 53, Indra Vihar , Sector 7 (Ext.) , New Power House Road, Shastri Nagar , Jodhpur - 3.

----Respondents (7) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5953/2021 Marudhar Balika Vidyapeeth Vidyapeeth Vidyawadi, (Higher Secondary), Kheemel, Station Rani, District Pali (Rajasthan) Through Its Joint Secretary, Shri Mukesh Kumar Bhandari S/o Deoraj Bhandari, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Rani.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Ku. Lata Sharma D/o Shri Mani Ram Sharma, Resident Of Plot No. 48, Bank Colony, Naka Madar, Ajmer.

2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,

[2023/RJJD/012085] (4 of 10) [CW-6082/2020]

Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

3. The District Education Officer (Secondary), Education Department, Pali.

4. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner.

----Respondents (8) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6168/2021 Marudhar Balika Vidyapeeth Vidyawadi (Higher Secondary), Kheemel, Station Rani, District Pali (Rajasthan) Through Its Joint Secretary Shri Mukesh Kumar Bhandari S/o Deoraj Bhandari, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Rani.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Ku. Laxmi Choudhary D/o Shri Sridhar Tukaram Choudhary, Resident Of Plot No. 6, Near Jyoti Gajre Hospital, Ganesh Colony, Jalgaun, Maharashtra.

2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

3. The District Education Officer (Secondary), Education Department, Pali.

4. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Respondents (9) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1625/2022 The Managing Committee Of Marudhar Balika Vidyapeeth Vidyawadi (Higher Secondary), Kheemel, Station Rani, District Pali (Rajasthan) Through Its Joint Secretary Shri Mukesh Kumar Bhandari S/o Deoraj Bhandari, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Rani.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Smt. Prabha Rani Sharma W/o Shri Onkar Nath Sharma, Resident Of 85/40, Indraprasth Nagar, Kesri Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

[2023/RJJD/012085] (5 of 10) [CW-6082/2020]

3. The District Education Officer (Secondary), Education Department, Pali.

4. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. D.D. Chitlangi Mr. Aniket Tater Mrs. Sapna Vaishnav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sarwan Kumar Mr. Pankaj Choudhary for Mr. D.S.

Sodha Mr. Dilip Sharma Mr. Bhupendra Singh

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

26/04/2023

1. This bunch of writ petitions lays challenge to different

order(s) passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational

Institution Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Tribunal') to the extent of requiring the petitioner - Institutions to

comply with the order and pay the entire amount mentioned in the

order(s) to the employees without any direction to the State to

pay its share of the liability.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Tribunal

cannot fix the burden of paying the amount upon the petitioner -

Institutions, particularly when the final amount is to be

determined by the State and it is the State's duty to pay its share

of grant-in-aid (90/80 or 70 percent, as the case may be).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner - Institutions submitted

that the Tribunal has issued directions to pay the amount under

different heads without arriving at the figures or determining the

[2023/RJJD/012085] (6 of 10) [CW-6082/2020]

amount payable to the employees. He informed that in light of

such stipulation in the order(s), all the employees have filed

execution proceedings against the petitioner - Institutions. And

the bigger problem is, that in absence of determination by the

Tribunal or by the Government, Institutions are being asked to pay

whatever amount has been claimed by the employees in the

execution petitions.

4. He argued that in absence of clarity on the amount to be

paid and in absence of corresponding liability upon the State qua

its share, the petitioner - Institutions are facing hardship and they

are not in a position to pay/deposit even their share before the

Tribunal though they bonafidely wish to pay at least their share.

Learned counsel submitted that most of the employees have filed

execution petitions in the Tribunal or in the Civil Courts.

5. Inviting Court's attention towards the judgment dated

06.11.2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur

Bench in the case of State of Rajasthan & Another Vs. The

Management Committee Sh. Bhagwan Das Todi College

(D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.663/2015 and other

connected appeals), learned counsel argued that even as per

the Division Bench judgment, it is the responsibility of the State to

determine the amount on the basis of due drawn statement sent

by the Educational Institutions.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - State

submitted that the Institutions should at least deposit their share

of the liability before the Tribunal in terms of the interim orders

passed by this Court.

[2023/RJJD/012085] (7 of 10) [CW-6082/2020]

7. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents

submitted that the petitioner - Institutions have not complied with

the interim order passed by this Court and in most of the cases,

they have not deposited their share (10/ 20 or 30 percent, as the

case may be). They submitted that had the petitioner -

Institutions deposited their share in compliance of the interim

order(s), perhaps the respondent - employees would have got

some respite.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder submitted that

the petitioners are ready and willing to pay/deposit their share of

the liability but since the State has not determined the amount,

they are not in a position to discharge their obligation pursuant to

the interim orders passed by this Court.

9. Heard rival counsel.

10. The Division Bench in the judgment dated 06.11.2015 in the

case of Bhagwan Das Todi College (supra) had directed thus:

"The Special Appeals filed by the State Government are without substance and accordingly dismissed and taking note of the Sec.31(2) of the Act, 1989 we direct the Non-Government Educational Institutions to prepare due drawn statement of each of the employees of their Institution who have worked against sanctioned & aided posts in regard to their arrears of salary and other dues which are approved expenditures to the extent of grant-in-aid and the same be sent to the State Government and the State Government after its due verification from their records will make payment of arrears to each of the employee who either have now become members of Rules, 2010 or have retired or left the job (upto the period one has worked) and to other employees similarly situated under intimation to the concerned Non- Government Recognized Institution.

However, it may not remain confined to such of the employees who are covered under the present litigation and since the employees of the State Government and the Non-Government Aided Institution

[2023/RJJD/012085] (8 of 10) [CW-6082/2020]

are under litigation at various levels either before the ld.Tribunal or in this Court and after this issue being settled by us, we consider it appropriate that let this order be made applicable mutatis mutandis to all such employees who are similarly situated, in the manner as directed by this court and indicated above.

The Non-Government Aided Institutions shall ensure compliance of this order within two months and the State Government shall ensure compliance in letter & spirit within two months thereafter by making actual payment to the employee of the Non-Government Aided Institutions."

11. A perusal of the Division Bench judgment reveals that it is

the responsibility of the State Government to determine the

amount payable to the employees, of course after the due drawn

statement is filed. Thus, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to

have either required the State Government to determine the

amount under each head or calculate the amount itself before

passing order(s). The Tribunal ought to have specified the amount

to which the employee is entitled to. The Tribunal has passed

identical rather cyclostyled orders without pronouncing upon the

rival contentions. The Tribunal hearing the appeal ought not to

have passed the kind of orders it has passed. Appeal filed by the

employees could not have been decided with such sweeping

directions, that too without dealing with and deciding points of

dispute.

12. Ideally matters deserves to be remitted but as the execution

proceedings are pending, instead of remanding the matter, to

avoid unwarranted litigation and to meet the ends of justice, these

writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The petitioners (Institutions) shall send due drawn

statements of the employee(s) to the competent authority of the

[2023/RJJD/012085] (9 of 10) [CW-6082/2020]

State Government within a period of 15 days from today (if not

already sent).

(ii) If the due drawn statements of the employees have already

been sent, the Institutions shall forward a photocopy of the due

drawn statement and order of the Tribunal to the respective

District Education Officer (D.E.O.) within a period of 15 days from

today along with a copy of the order instant.

(iii) The respective District Education Officer/competent authority

of the State Government shall examine and process the same and

determine the amount payable to each of the employees within a

period of three months from today.

(iv) On determination/calculation of the amount aforesaid, the

State Government/competent authority shall send a copy thereof

to the Tribunal giving reference of the Case No. and date of

decision etc. The State shall also forward a copy to the

Educational Institution(s), where the employee(s) had served.

(v) On receipt of the calculation made by the State Government,

the petitioner - Institutions will be required to deposit their share

of the amount (10%, 20% or 30%, as the case may be) with the

Tribunal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of

the calculation sent by the State Government. It will be required

of the Institution(s) to inform the employee(s) about the amount

being deposited and the calculation of the amount made by the

State.

(vi) On receipt of the information about payment being deposited

by the Institution(s), the employee(s) concerned will furnish the

details of their bank account before the Tribunal.

[2023/RJJD/012085] (10 of 10) [CW-6082/2020]

(vii) The State Government shall deposit its share (90%, 80%

and 70%, as the case may be) before the Tribunal within a period

of six months of the amount having been determined.

(viii) The amount deposited by the Institutions and the State

Government will be remitted in the accounts of the employees

forthwith.

(ix) Upon the full amount as calculated by the State being

deposited by the State and the Institutions, the execution

proceedings before the Tribunal/Civil Court shall stand closed.

(x) Since the Tribunal has neither determined the amount nor

was any dispute about the amount before the Tribunal raised,

each employee shall be free to take up his/her cause afresh before

the Tribunal, in case they are not satisfied with the amount

calculated by the State Government.

(xi) Till 31.12.2023, the execution proceedings (if any) pending

before the Tribunal or in the concerned Civil Courts shall remain in

abeyance.

13. The writ petitions and all interlocutory application(s)

including stay petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 46 to 54-Arvind/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)