Rajasthan High Court

Ram Krishan Sharma vs Raj Non Bovt Educational Inst on 2 May, 2024

Author: Sameer Jain

Bench: Sameer Jain

[2024:RJ-JP:5788]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 99/2001
Ram Krishan Sharma S/o Shri Bhore Lal Sharma, aged about 37
years, resident of Mayur Vihar Karamchari Colony, Plot No. 12
behind Narain Vilas Bag, Rajgarh Road, Alwar
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1. Rajasthan Non Govt Educational Institutions Tribunal, Mini
Secretariat, Jaipur through its Presiding Officer.
2. Director of Secondary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner.
3. Managing Committee, Adarsh Vidya Mandir Madhaymik
Vidyalaya, Alwar, through its Secretary.
                                                                   ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. D.P. Sharma
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. S.Zakawat Ali, AGC
                                  Mr. Ashwini Bhargava for
                                  Mr. Manu Bhargava


                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
                             Order

31/01/2024

RESERVED ON             :       31/01/2024

PRONOUNCED ON :                 02/05/2024

1. By way of the present petition, a challenge is raised against

the order impugned dated 04.08.2000, passed by the Rajasthan

Non-Government Educational Tribunal in Application No. 211/1997

titled as Ram Kishan Sharma vs. Managing Committee, Adarsh

Vidya Mandir Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Alwar and Ors., whereby the

petitioner's application was dismissed.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

while passing the order impugned, the learned Tribunal failed to

take into consideration certain material aspects and also, the

[2024:RJ-JP:5788] (2 of 7) [CW-99/2001]

settled position of law and therefore, carved way for certain

perversities to creep in the order impugned, warranting

interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In

support of the said overarching contention, learned counsel

averred that employees of non-government educational institutes

are entitled to get salaries and allowances equal to the similarly

situated employees of the State Government. In this regard,

learned counsel placed reliance upon the provisions of the

Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989

(hereinafter, Act of 1989) and the Rajasthan Non-Government

Educational Institutions Rules, 1993 (hereinafter, Rules 1993).

More particularly, it was argued that the respondent-institute is a

recognized institute as per Section 3 of the Act of 1989. Whereas,

Rule 32 of the Rules of 1993 read with Serial No. 14 of Appendix-

II, dictates that the norms of work of employees of the said non-

government institutions shall be as prescribed for similar category

of employees in the government educational institutions.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that under

the scheme of the Rules of 1993, an appendix was added under

Rule 5(1) of the Rules of 1993. As per the said appendix, it is the

mandatory duty of the recognized non-government institute to

provide its employees with salaries and allowances equal to the

similarly situated employees of the State Government.

Furthermore, it was submitted that even as per the Right to

Education Act, 2009 and Article 21A of the Constitution of India,

the emoluments of the non-government and government

institutes shall be proportionally equal for the nature of work

[2024:RJ-JP:5788] (3 of 7) [CW-99/2001]

undertaken. In support of the contentions advanced, learned

counsel placed reliance upon The Special Officer, Salem Co-

operative Sugar Mills, Matriculation High Secondary School

vs. All Teachers Front reported in (2009) 2 SLR 619,

Secretary Mahatma Gandhi Mission vs. Bhartiya Kamgar

Sena reported in (2017) 4 SLR 761, T.M.A. Pai Foundation

and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in (2002)

8 SCC 481, Islamic Academy of Education and Anr. vs. State

of Karnataka and Ors. reported in (2003) 6 SCC 697,

Shantiniketan Hindi Primary School vs. Pal Hariram

Ramavtar and Ors. reported in (2010) 2 SCC 195, S.B. CWP

No. 6559/1997 titled as Yash Pal Sharma and Ors. vs.

Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions

Tribunal and Krishnamacharyulu and Ors. vs. Sri

Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering and Anr.

reported in (1997) 3 SCC 571. In summation, it was argued that

equal pay must be awarded for equal work done, especially

looking to the fact that the Act of 1989 is a beneficial piece of

legislation, more susceptible to a liberal interpretation of its

provisions.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has

submitted that while passing the order impugned dated

04.08.2000, the learned Tribunal duly took into consideration all

material aspects and thereafter, arrived at a logical conclusion.

Therefore, as no perversity has crept in the order impugned, no

interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India. In support of the said opposition, learned counsel placed

[2024:RJ-JP:5788] (4 of 7) [CW-99/2001]

reliance upon the dictum of the Division Bench of this Court as

enunciated in Rekha Dewani and Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan

and Ors. reported in 2015 WLC (Raj.) UC 710 and Adarsh

Vidhya Mandir Samiti, Bharatpur vs. Raju Lal reported in

2013 (4) WLC (Raj.) 612. While placing reliance upon the said

judgments, it was argued that the employees of unaided non-

government educational institutions cannot claim equity in pay

with those government institutions.

5. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both

the sides, scanned the record of the instant petition and perused

through the judgments cited at Bar.

6. At the outset, in order to efficaciously redress the lis before

this Court, it shall be just and proper to categorically delineate the

question of law which has arisen for the consideration of this

Court. The overarching question of law is noted herein-under:-

"Whether teachers rendering their services in unaided non- government educational institutions can claim parity in pay scales, salary and allowances, with those teachers rendering their services in government/aided educational institutes?"

7. Upon a co-joint analysis of the Act of 1989 and the

corresponding Rules of 1993, it is observed that the legislature in

its wisdom has consciously classified non-government educational

institutes as a separate class of their own, wholly distinct from

government educational institutes, administered vide separate and

independent statutory provisions and regulations.

8. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1993 provides for the grant of

recognition to institutes, which in turn, is governed by the

provisions of Rule 5 of the said Rules read with Appendix-II. The

[2024:RJ-JP:5788] (5 of 7) [CW-99/2001]

overarching Rules makes it abundantly clear that an institute shall

be recognized only after the due consideration of the

stipulations/norms such as the infrastructure, management

committee, status etc. Upon the non-fulfillment of said

stipulations, a recognition so previously granted, could be revoked

as well.

9. In this background, it would be appropriate to note that the

reliance placed upon Rule 32 of the Rules of 1993 by the counsel

for the petitioner, insofar as it is argued that the said Rule read

with Serial No. 14 of the Appendix-II provides for equality in pay

between teachers of aided/government and recognized non-

government institutions, is wholly misconceived, for the following

reasons, namely:-

9.1. That Rule 32 merely prescribes that the 'norms of work' in a

non-government institute shall be the same as prescribed for

similar category of employees in a government educational

institute.

9.2. That the Appendix-II at Serial No.14 merely prescribes for

the pay and allowances to be paid to the employees of an unaided

recognized institute as per the government rules so formulated by

the State. However, no such Rules have been formulated by the

State qua the scale of pay and allowances to the employees of a

recognized but unaided institute and accordingly, the same were

also not placed before the learned Tribunal, for their due

consideration. Therefore, no perversity has crept in the order

impugned dated 04.08.2000.

[2024:RJ-JP:5788] (6 of 7) [CW-99/2001]

9.3. Having said that, it is noted that the aforementioned

Appendix-II only comes in the aid of recognized aided institutions,

as the same mandates that such scale of pay and allowances shall

be payable to the employees of an aided institution, which shall

not be less than those prescribed for the staff belonging to a

similar category in the government institution. However, in the

facts of the present case, as the respondent-institute is

undisputedly unaided, the aforementioned provisions qua

equal/proportional pay, shall not be attracted towards the

respondent-institute.

9.4. Therefore, a reasonable differentia has been drawn between

the two sects of 'aided' and 'unaided' institutes qua the grant of

equal/proportional pay and allowance, in sync with those

advanced in government institutes. On said count alone, the

reliance placed upon the judgments as noted above, by the

petitioner, is misplaced; moreso, for the reason that the no rules

have been promulgated under the Act of 1989 read with the Rules

of 1993 for payment of equal pay in unaided non-government

institutions.

10. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to place

reliance upon the dictum of the Division Bench of this Court, as

enunciated in Adarsh Vidhya Mandir Samiti, Bharatpur

(Supra) whereby the controversy before this Court was squarely

settled and it was held that the scale of pay and allowances as

admissible to the employees of government institutes are

applicable to the employees of the aided institutions only and no

parity of scale of pay could be claimed by the employees of an

[2024:RJ-JP:5788] (7 of 7) [CW-99/2001]

unaided institute under the scheme of the Act of 1989 and the

Rules of 1993. An intelligible differentia was drawn between

'aided' and 'unaided' non-government institutes, whereby the

former was bound by the principle of proportional/equal and the

latter, was exempt in the absence of any specific Rules framed to

that effect. The said fact was duly considered by the learned

Tribunal whilst passing the order impugned dated 04.08.2000.

11. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal has passed

a well-reasoned speaking order and after consideration of material

aspects, arrived at a logical conclusion. This Court is in complete

agreement with the reasoning adopted by the learned Tribunal.

There is no violation of principles of natural justice and no

palpable error has crept in the order impugned and as a result, no

interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India.

12. Therefore, in summation it is noted that unaided non-

government institutes cannot be compelled to pay salary to its

teachers equal to that payable to the government school teachers,

especially in the absence of any specific Rule framed to that effect

as per the scheme of the Act of 1989 and the Rules of 1993.

13. Accordingly, upon a cumulative consideration of the

foregoing observations, this Court deems it appropriate to dismiss

the instant petition.