LAWS(RAJ)-2014-9-167

MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, SARVAJANIK MIDDLE SCHOOL, JODHPUR Vs. RAJ NON-GOVT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR & ANR

Decided On September 18, 2014
Management Committee, Sarvajanik Middle School, Jodhpur Appellant
V/S
Raj Non-Govt Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur And Anr Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred to challenge the order dated 15.12.2006 passed by learned Single Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3335/2003.

(2.) The facts necessary to be noticed for adjudication of this appeal are that the respondent Shri Suraj Karan came to be retired from service on 4.3.1999 on attaining the age of superannuation on 4.3.1999 while serving the appellant as Teacher. The appellant- Institution did not make payment of gratuity and other retiral benefits including leave encashment to the respondent, therefore, he preferred an application as per Section 21 of the Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1989'). The application came to be accepted by the Tribunal in light of Full Bench judgment of this Court in S.R. Higher Secondary School Vs. Raj. Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur & 23 Ors, 2002 3 WLC(Raj) 586. A challenge was given to the judgment aforesaid by way of filing petition for writ, that came to be dismissed under the judgment impugned.

(3.) Suffice to mention that the issue with regard to entitlement of gratuity and other retiral benefits including leave encashment and revision of pay-scale has already been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan Welfare Society Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005 4 JT 163. In the case aforesaid, it was held that gratuity within the meaning of the Act of 1989 and the Rules framed thereunder cannot form part of recurring grant. Thus, in light of Full Bench decision of this Court as well as the judgment given by Hon'ble Supreme Court the writ petition was dismissed. In appeal the only argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the State Government is statutorily under an obligation to provide aid to the Institution for making payment of gratuity.