MOHATA POST GRADUATE COLLEGE Vs. SHIV KUMAR SAHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned judgment dtd. 3/2/2010 passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal'), by which application filed by respondent no.1 under Sec. 21 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'), has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to fix the pay scale of the respondent under the pay scale of 8000-13500 w.e.f. 1/9/1996 under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules 1998 (for short 'Rules of 1998') with arrears. Further a direction has been issued to pay UGC senior pay scale as well as selection scale in terms of schemes and payment of privilege leaves along with interest @ 6% p.a. with effect from the date of filing the application and other directions have also been issued.

(2.) The petitioner is a philanthropic institution and the respondent was appointed as Librarian on 15/10/1975 by the petitioner college. The respondent retired from the said post on 31/10/2002 after attaining the age of superannuation. He submitted an application under Sec. 21 of the Act which has been partly allowed by the Tribunal vide impugned judgment dtd. 3/2/2010.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent was treated as ineligible on the post of Librarian by the Director, College Education vide order dtd. 4/4/1994 and the said order was never challenged by the respondent. Counsel submits that the application filed by the respondent under Sec. 21 of the Act was not maintainable in view of Ss. 18 and 19 of the Act. The respondent could have filed appeal under Sec. 19 and the limitation was 30 days but instead of filing appeal, the respondent has submitted application under Sec. 21 after lapse of the period of limitation. Counsel submits that otherwise also the respondent retired on 31/10/2002 but he filed time barred application. Counsel submits that though no limitation period is prescribed under the Act but the limitation period was three years under Article 137 of the Limitation Act and the application has been filed by the respondent after three years. Counsel submits that no opportunity of cross-examination was provided to the petitioner and the provision contained under Sec. 25 of the Act was not followed which has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Tagore Bal Niketan Madhyamik Vidyalaya v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2018 (1) WLC (Raj) 19. Counsel submits that no calculation has been done by the Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment, hence it would not be possible for the petitioner to calculate the amount awarded by the Tribunal.