Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shri Bikaner Mahila Mandal Madhyamik ... vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:42014) on 10 October, 2024
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:42014]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1965/2020
Shri Bikaner Mahila Mandal Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Asaniyo Ka
Chowk, Bikaner Through Its Director Gajendra Singh Rathore S/o
Shri Kan Singh, Aged 41 Years.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Secondary
Education, Bikaner.
2. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. Smt. Manorma Vyas W/o Shri Hukam Chand, Aged About
69 Years, R/o Kesar Desar Well, Old Gilani, Bikaner.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1790/2020
Shri Bikaner Mahila Mandal Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Asaniyo Ka
Chowk, Bikaner Through Its Director Gajendra Singh Rathore S/o
Shri Kan Singh Aged 41 Year.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director Secondary
Education, Bikaner.
2. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. Chanchal Gulati W/o Shri Devendra Kumar, R/o C-98,
Samta Nagar, Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1817/2020
Shri Bikaner Mahila Mahila Mandal Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
Asaniyo Ka Chowk, Bikaner Through Its Director Gajendra Singh
Rathore S/o Shri Kan Singh, Aged 41 Years.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Secondary
Education, Bikaner.
2. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. Dhakkan Singh S/o Shri Tej Singh, Aged About 68 Years,
(Downloaded on 15/10/2024 at 09:36:42 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:42014] (2 of 7) [CW-1965/2020]
C/o Shri Bikaner Mahila Mandal Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
Asaniyo Ka Chowk, Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1819/2020
Shri Bikaner Mahila Mandal Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Asaniyo Ka
Chowk, Bikaner Through Its Director Gajendra Singh Rathore S/o
Shri Kan Singh, Aged 41 Years.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director Secondary
Education, Bikaner.
2. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. Smt. Bagwati Swami W/o Shri Manohar Lal Swami, Aged
About 68 Years, R/o Swamio Ka Chowk, Jassusar Gate,
Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8819/2022
Shri Bikaner Rajya Mahila Mandal Kendriya Karyalaya Balwadi,
Vivekanand Marg, Bikaner, Through Its Director Gajendra Singh
Rathore S/o Shri Kan Singh Rathore, Aged 43 Years.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Secondary
Education, Bikaner (Raj.)
2. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Bikaner
(Raj.).
3. Smt. Sushma Goswami D/o Shri Anirudh Goswami, W/o
Shri Hemant Goswami, R/o 14/81, Mukta Prasad Nagar,
Bikaner (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8851/2022
Shri Bikaner Rajya Mahila Mandal Kendriya Karyalaya Balwadi,
Vivekanand Marg, Bikaner, Through Its Director Gajendra Singh
Rathore S/o Shri Kan Singh Rathore, Aged 42 Years.
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 15/10/2024 at 09:36:42 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:42014] (3 of 7) [CW-1965/2020]
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Secondary
Education, Bikaner (Raj.).
2. District Education Officer, Department Of Secondary,
Bikaner (Raj.).
3. Smt. Sunita Bhagava W/o Shri Ramesh Chandra
Bhargava, C-65, Sadulganj, Bikaner (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8853/2022
Shri Bikaner Rajya Mahila Mandal Kendriya Karyalaya Balwadi,
Vivekanand Marg, Bikaner, Through Its Director Gajendra Singh
Rathore S/o Shri Kan Singh Rathore, Aged 42 Years.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Secondary
Education, Bikaner (Raj.).
2. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Bikaner
(Raj.).
3. Smt. Meena Saini D/o Shri Mohan Lal Chouhan W/o Shri
Indra Prakash Saini, D-18, Jainarayan Vyas Colony,
Bikaner (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7506/2016
Shri Bikaner Rajya Mahila Mandal Madhymik Vidyalaya, Asaniyo
Ka Chowk, Bikaner, through its Secretary Smt. Lata Rani
Goswami W/o Shri S.L. Bharti, aged 61 years.
----Petitioner
Versus
1.State of Rajasthan, through the Director of Education,
Secondary Education, Bikaner (Raj.)
2. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Bikaner
(Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Kumar Shah
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajeev Purohit
(Downloaded on 15/10/2024 at 09:36:42 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:42014] (4 of 7) [CW-1965/2020]
Mr. M.S. Purohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
10/10/2024
1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the
controversy involved in these matters is identical to one decided
by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a bunch of writ petitions
led by Marudhar Balika Vidyapeeth Vidyawadi Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6082/2020 decided
on 26.04.2023 and prays that similar directions be issued in these
present case.
2. Hence, the present writ petitions are disposed of in terms of
the judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of "Marudhar Balika Vidyapeeth Vidyawadi" (supra) decided
on 26.04.2023.
3. The directions given in the case of "Marudhar Balika
Vidyapeeth Vidyawadi" (supra) shall also apply in the present case
and for the sake of clarity, order dated 26.04.2023 is being
reproduced hereunder:-
"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
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
[2024:RJ-JD:42014] (5 of 7) [CW-1965/2020]
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 quaits
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.
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 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
[2024:RJ-JD:42014] (6 of 7) [CW-1965/2020]
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 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.
(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
[2024:RJ-JD:42014] (7 of 7) [CW-1965/2020]
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.
4. However, in these cases, the execution proceedings (if any)
pending before the Tribunal or in the concerned Civil Courts shall
remain in abeyance till 31.03.2025.
5. All interlocutory application(s) including stay petition(s)
stand disposed of accordingly.
6. A copy of this order be placed in each file.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
1-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
