Dismissed

Secretary Manage Committee v. Leeladhar Sharma and Ors.

Rajasthan HC27 Jan 2015CW/6690/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal. The Tribunal had directed a school to grant retirement benefits, including gratuity and dearness allowance, to a retired teacher based on Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed and stay application closed.

Secretary Manage Committee Vs Leeladhar Sharma… — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6690/2012

¶4

Secretary, Management Committee, Goenka Vidya Mandir, Pilani

¶5

Versus

¶6

Leeladhar Sharma & Ors.

¶7

Date of Order :: 27^th January, 2015

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶9

Mr.R.K. Jain for petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Kapoor for respondent number 1.

¶10

<><><>

¶11

BY THE COURT :

¶12

The instant writ application projects a challenge to the order dated 21^st December, 2011, passed by the Rajasthan NonGovernment Educational Institution Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal', for short), wherein the claim of the respondent-Teacher (Leeladhar Sharma), has been allowed with a direction to pay gratuity, selection grade on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service, privilege leave, arrears of dearness allowance, benefit of 6^th Pay Commission and provident fund.

¶13

Briefly, the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein, needs to be first noticed. The respondent-Teacher (Leeladhar Sharma) was initially appointed on the post of Teacher Grade-III by the petitioner-School who retired attaining the age of superannuation on 31^st March, 2009. The respondent-Teacher instituted an appeal before the Tribunal at Jaipur, praying for the benefits as aforesaid along with interest @

¶14

¶15

24% per annum. The petitioner-School resisted the claim and also filed reply to the appeal. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties, materials available on record and after hearing the counsel for the parties, allowed the appeal partly vide impugned order dated 21^st December, 2011, with a direction to accord the benefits admissible as per the mandate of Circular dated 25^th February, 1992 and the benefits admissible under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2008, as amended from time to time. An interest @ 6% per annum has also been allowed on the amount due until the payment is made. Relief has also been granted to the respondent-Teacher with reference to the dearness allowance, pay fixation and privilege leave along with gratuity with interest @ 6% per annum. The payment already made shall be adjusted against the payments due. The exercise was to be completed within three months from the date of the impugned order.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-School reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, argued that his challenge is only to the limited extent that the claim made by the respondent-Teacher, be restricted and made enforceable only to the extent of grant-in-aid received from the State Government. However, the learned counsel did not dispute the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Welfare Society versus State of Rajasthan : Civil Appeal Number 2936 of 2002 ; decided on 7^th April, 2005. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been followed in various

¶17

¶18

pronouncements by this Court. The issue was also raised, considered and adjudicated upon in the case of S.R. Higher Secondary School versus Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutes & Ors. : 2003 (1) RLW (Raj.) 530 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the view of this Court and set at rest the controversy in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. versus S.R. Higher Secondary School : 2005 (1) WLC (SCC) 301 .

¶19

Per contra ; Mr. Rajesh Kapoor, learned counsel for the respondent-Teacher, strenuously argued that the writ application is absolutely misconceived for the issue raised herein is no more resintegra in view of the authoritative pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Welfare Society (supra) as well as in the case of S.R. Higher Secondary School (supra). Learned counsel would further submit that the Tribunal committed no illegality while making order dated 21^st December, 2011, relying upon the law declared in the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases aforesaid.

¶20

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and with their assistance, perused the materials available on record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing the matter for some time fairly conceded that the controversy raised is squarely covered by the opinion of this Court, which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.R. Higher Secondary School (supra).

¶21

For the reasons and discussions herein above, and particularly in view of the undeniable authoritative pronouncements on the

¶22

¶23

issue raised herein, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, agreed upon by the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is devoid of any substance, and lacks in merit, and therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

¶24