Dismissed

Dr. Sukhpal Mali S/O Shri Ramdev Mali v. the Management Committee

Rajasthan HC12 May 2023CW/2616/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed multiple writ petitions filed by absorbed non-government aided college teachers seeking 10% interest on delayed gratuity. The court held that petitioners had previously satisfied themselves with a Tribunal order and a High Court order after a five-year delay, raising no objection then. The court ruled them estopped by their prior statements and lack of clean hands, dismiss

What did the court decide?

Petitions seeking directions for payment of 10% interest on delayed gratuity were dismissed due to delay, laches, and failure to disclose prior satisfaction.

Dr. Sukhpal Mali S/O Shri Ramdev Mali Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/010521]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2655/2021

¶4

Dr. Deepak T. Bijlani (Since Deceased), Through Legal Representative Nikhil Bijlani S/o Lt. Sh. Deepak Bijlani, Aged About 31 Years, R/o- 09/10-A, Mayur Colony, Alwar Gate, Ajmer, Rajasthan

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Management Committee, D.A.V College Managing Committee Through Its Secretary, Mandi Market, Chitra Gupta Marg, New Delhi- 110055.

¶8

D.a.v. College, Ajmer Through Principal, D.a.v. College, Byawar Road, Ajmer

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, College Education, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶10

The Director College Education, Government Of Rajasthan Shiksha Sankul, J.L.N Marg, Jaipur

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

Connected With

¶13

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2492/2021

¶14

Dr Anil Kumar Mathur S/o Lt. Shri Ghanshyam Narayan Mathur, Aged About 60 Years, R/o 31, Abhilasha, Dwarka Nagar, Lane No. 2, Chourasaiwas Road, Ajmer Rajasthan.

¶15

----Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

The Management Committee, D.A.V. College Managing Committee Through Its Secretary, Mandi Market, Chitra Gupta Marg, New Delhi- 110055

¶18

Dayanand College, Ajmer, Through Principal, Byawar Road, Ajmer.

¶19

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, College Education, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶20

The Director, College Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Shiksha Sankul, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur.

----Respondents

(2 of 12)

[2023/RJJP/010521]

[CW-2655/2021]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2556/2021

¶26

Dr. Arun Kumar Chaturvedi S/o Sh. B.s. Chaturvedi, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Near Choudhary Hotel, Ramganj, Ajmer.

¶27

----Petitioner

¶28

Versus

¶29

The Management Committee, D.A.V. College Managing Committee Through Its Secretary, Mandi Market, Chitra Gupta Marg, New Delhi- 110055

¶30

D.a.v. College, Ajmer, Through Principal, D.A.V College, Byawar Road, Ajmer.

¶31

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, College Education, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶32

The Director, College Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Shiksha Sankul, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur.

¶33

----Respondents

¶34

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2662/2021

¶35

Sajjan Kumar Verma S/o- Lt. Sh. Madan Lal Verma, Aged About 61 Years, R/o - D-5, Shalim Nagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan

¶36

----Petitioner

¶37

Versus

¶38

The Management Committee, D.A.V. College Managing Committee Through Its Secretary, Mandi Market, Chitra Gupta Marg, New Delhi-110055.

¶39

Dayanand College, Ajmer, Through Principal, Banwar Road, Ajmer

¶40

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, College Education, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶41

The Director, College Education, Government Of Rajasthan Shiksha Sankul, J.L.N Marg, Jaipur

¶42

----Respondents

¶43

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2616/2021

¶44

Dr. Sukhpal Mali S/o Shri Ramdev Mali, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village- Tabji, Via Saradhana, Dist- Ajmer, Rajasthan

¶45

----Petitioner

¶46

Versus

¶47

The Management Committee, D.A.V. College Managing

(3 of 12)

[2023/RJJP/010521]

[CW-2655/2021]

Committee Through Its Secretary, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶52

The Chairman D.A.V. College, Management Committee, Chitragupt Road, New Delhi.

¶53

The Principal, D.A.V College, Byawar Road, Ajmer

¶54

Chief Secretary Higher Secondary Education/ College Education, Department Of Agriculture, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶55

The Director College Education, Government Of Rajasthan Shiksha Sankul, J.LN. Marg, Jaipur

¶56

The Director, Department Of Agriculture, Jaipur Rajasthan

¶57

----Respondents

¶58

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2672/2021

¶59

Anil Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Ram Narain Sharma, Aged About 56 Years, R/o A-815, Chandravardai Nagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶60

----Petitioner

¶61

Versus

¶62

The Management Committee, D.A.V. College Managing Committee Through Its Secretary, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶63

The Chairman, D.A.V. College, Management Committee, Chitragupt Road, New Delhi

¶64

The Principal, D.A.V. College, Byawar Road, Ajmer.

¶65

Chief Secretary, Higher Secondary Education/college Education/ Department Of Agriculture, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶66

The Director, College Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Shiksha Sankul, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur.

¶67

The Director, Department Of Agriculture, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶68

----Respondents

¶69

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajatshatru MIna For Respondent(s) : Ms. Naina Saraf Mr. Prakhar Gupta for Mr. V.B.SharmaAAG

¶70

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

12/05/2023

[2023/RJJP/010521]

[CW-2655/2021]

(4 of 12)

Since common questions of law and facts are involved in this batch of writ petitions, hence with the consent of the parties arguments have been heard in all these matters and the bunch is being decided by this common order. For convenience, to decide these matters, facts mentioned in S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 2655/2021 are being taken into consideration. Aforesaid writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:-

¶77

“In the facts and circumstances aforesaid, the Petitioner most respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased:

¶78

I. To declare the part of the order dated 24.10.2016 in application no. 768/2014 passed by Mr. Ram Singh Meena, RHJS, Rajasthan NonGovernment Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur qua awarding 6% simple interest p.a on delayed payment of gratuity as contrary to provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Notification bearing No. S-70012/6/87-SS II (II) dated 01.10.1987.

¶79

II. To direct the respondent institute to compute the gratuity amount payable to petitioner along with 10 % simple interest P.A. on delayed payment of gratuity amount in terms of Notifications bearing No. S-700012/6/87-SS-II (II) dated 01.10.1987 issued by the Central Government.

¶80

III. To direct the respondent institute to pay all the arrears accrued out of the Gratuity amount as

(5 of 12)

[2023/RJJP/010521]

[CW-2655/2021]

well as interest on delayed payment of gratuity in an expeditious manner to the petitioner.

¶85

IV. To pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and necessary.”

¶86

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner -Dr. Deepak T. Bijlani was appointed on the post of Lecturer for the Subject of Commerce in DAV College at Ajmer in the year 1976. Counsel submits that respondent college is a recognized institution under the provisions of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Act, 1989 and Rules of 1993 framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act of 1989” and “Rules of 1993”). Counsel submits that in the year 2010, the State Government framed a scheme to absorb the employees working in the Non-Government aided Institutions by enacting Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2010”). Counsel submits that after their due screening, the services of the petitioner and others were absorbed and they were given appointment by the State Government. Counsel submits that at the time of his absorption the respondentCollege/ Managing Committee of DAV College did not make the payment of Dearness Allowance, 6^th Pay Commission, Gratuity Payment, Benefit of leave encashment/cash payment in lieu of privilege leave, balance of Provident fund and interest on the aforesaid due amount. Counsel submits that petitioner approached the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, “the Tribunal”) by way of filing an application under Section 21 of the Act of 1989 and the same was disposed of

[2023/RJJP/010521]

[CW-2655/2021]

(6 of 12)

by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 24.10.2016 directing the respondent Management of the College to make payment of the due amounts as per the revised pay fixed for Government College Teachers including Librarians and PTIs Rules of 2009 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2009’) and further direction was issued to make the payment of Dearness Allowance, Leave encashment, Provident Fund, Gratuity also with interest @ 6% per annum. Counsel submits that as per Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 (for short, the Act of 1972) and as per the Notification dated 01.10.1987 the petitioner was entitled to get interest @ 10% on account of delayed payment of gratuity amount. Counsel submits that the Tribunal has not awarded interest @ 10 % to the petitioner on the delayed payment of gratuity, hence the petitioner has approached this Court for praying for issuing appropriate directions in this regard.

¶91

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that respondent-Management of the College felt aggrieved by the said judgment dated 24.10.2016 passed by the Tribunal and approached this Court by way of filing batch of writ petitions before this Court with the lead case of Managing Committee, DAV College and Anr. Vs. Chief Secretary, Higher Education/College Education and Ors: SBCWP No. 8592/2019. Counsel submits that after hearing the arguments of both the sides including employees of the college (petitioners), the writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 21.08.2019 with directions to the State to make payment of their

(7 of 12)

[2023/RJJP/010521]

[CW-2655/2021]

share and the Management was directed to make the payment of their share. Counsel submits that at the time of arguments of the above petition, counsel appearing for the petitioners made a statement before this Court that petitioners are entitled for complete dues strictly in accordance with law and order of the Tribunal is perfectly in accordance with law. Counsel submits that petitioners were satisfied by the judgment passed by the Tribunal on 24.10.2016 and now after a lapse of almost five years, petitioners have approached this Court concealing the facts before this Court and now they want modification of the order dated 24.10.2016 passed by the Tribunal. Counsel submits that once the petitioners were satisfied by the judgment passed by the Tribunal, now there is no occasion available with them to approach this Court after a delay of five years to claim more interest in terms of Section 7 of the Act of 1972. Counsel submits that petitioner have not approached this Court with clean hands. Hence, these petitions are liable to be dismissed.

¶96

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

¶97

This fact is not in dispute that services of the petitioners were absorbed by the respondents in exercise of the provisions contained under the Rules of 2010. This fact is also not in dispute that the petitioners approached the Tribunal by way of filing an application under Section 21 of the Act of 1989 claiming following prayer:-

(8 of 12)

[2023/RJJP/010521]

[CW-2655/2021]

“In the facts and circumstances aforesaid, the applicant most respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay:

¶102

(i) Four installments of Dearness Allowance arrears i.e. 14 % for January 2010, 16% for July 2010, 12 % for January 2011 and 12% for July 2011.

¶103

(ii) 6^th Pay Commission arrears (1/12006 to 31/07/2011) as fixed by UGC.

¶104

(iii) Gratuity Payment as per 6^th Pay Commission norms.

¶105

(iv) Benefit of leave encashment/cash payment in lieu of privilege leave.

¶106

(v) Balance of Provident Fund and interest thereon.

¶107

(vi) Compensation of loss of interest on account of irregular deposit of PF contribution by management.

¶108

(vii) Interest on aforesaid benefits from the date they became dur and till they are actually paid @ 9% per annum.”

¶109

After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the Tribunal passed the judgment on 24.10.2016 directing the respondentsManaging Committee to make the payment to the petitioners as per 6^th pay Commission and as per the Rules of 2009 and the respondents were further directed to pay the amount of Dearness Allowance, Privilege leave encashment, gratuity and provident fund etc. with interest @ 6% per annum. It appears that the petitioners were satisfied by the aforesaid directions issued by the

(9 of 12)

[2023/RJJP/010521]

[CW-2655/2021]

Tribunal i.e. why a statement was made on behalf of the petitioners at the time of disposal of the batch of writ petitions filed by the respondents-Managing Committee, which reads as under:-

¶114

“Counsel for the respondent-teachers, Mr. Akhil Simlote, Mr. Mitesh Sharma, Mr. Vigyan Shah and Ms. Apheksha Tiwari submit that they are entitled for the complete dues strictly in accordance with law and the order of the Tribunal is perfectly in accordance with law.”

¶115

Relying upon the aforesaid statement made on behalf of the respondent-teachers, the batch of writ petitions with lead case of Managing Committee (Supra) : SBCWP No. 8592/2019 was disposed of by this Court, with following directions:-

¶116

“After hearing the counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record so also the precedent law cited by the counsel for the parties as well as impugned order passed by the Tribunal, this Court finds that on factual matrix and on the legal issues, the Tribunal’s order does not require any interference by this Court as it is in accordance with the prevalent precedent law in the matter of The Managing Committee, Shri Bhagwan Das Todi College (supra) . This Court is of the opinion that while following the precedent law in question as well as other precedent law, the Tribunal has rightly proceeded to grant the benefits to the teachers. This Court is also conscious of the fact that no appeal/challenge to the Tribunal’s order has been made by the State of Rajasthan. The limited issue of determination

(10 of 12)

[2023/RJJP/010521]

[CW-2655/2021]

for this Court would be the distribution of liability between the Managing Committee and the State of Rajasthan for which this Court finds that the judgment of Managing Committee, Baijnath Shriram Saboo Shishu Mandir Society & Ors. (supra) is already holding the field as the Division Bench of this Court has already declared the law that the Non-Government Aided Educational Institutions shall prepare and submit the due drawn statement and the State Government in turn was directed to verify the same from the record and directly make the payment of the arrears of the dues to the concerned employee to the extent aided institutions were in receipt of grant-in-aid. The Tribunal’s order is thus modified only to the extent that the State of Rajasthan shall be required to pay their share of the amount clearing arrears of the dues to the concerned employee to the extent aided institutions were in receipt of grant-in-aid. The gratuity, which is stated to be paid already, shall be payable in accordance with the judgment of the Tribunal. It is directed that the execution of the order of the Tribunal shall be qua the petitioner – Managing Committee only to the extent of amount to be paid by them in the grant-in-aid in question. Rest of the execution for the amount due shall be against the State of Rajasthan, which shall strictly be made in accordance with the judgment in the case of The Managing Committee, Shri Bhagwan Das Todi College (supra) and State shall pay their share directly to the concerned employee after ascertaining and verifying the same if so required. If any verification is required to be done, the same may be done within a period of

(11 of 12)

[2023/RJJP/010521]

[CW-2655/2021]

30 days from today. The employees shall be free to prosecute their execution petitions to the extent of respective shares to be payable by the Managing Committee and the State of Rajasthan separately. The gratuity shall be payable in accordance with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

¶125

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, this batch of writ petitions is disposed of.”

¶126

It appears that petitioners were satisfied with the aforesaid order dated 21.08.2019 and they were sleeping till the year 2021 and all of sudden they woke up after a lapse of more than five years from the date of passing of the judgment dated 24.10.2016 by the Tribunal and approached this Court concealing all these material facts with the prayer to issue directions to the respondents to make the payment of interest @ 10% per annum as per Section 7 of the Act of 1972.

¶127

The law is well settled in this regard that the platform of the Court cannot be used or utilized in a leisure form. If at all the petitioners were aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 24.10.2016, they could have assailed the said judgment immediately, but they kept silence for almost about five years and now without giving any explanation of the inordinate delay of five years and without disclosing the material facts, they have approached this Court. The petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands and they are estopped by their statements made in writ petition No. 8592/2019.

(12 of 12)

[2023/RJJP/010521]

[CW-2655/2021]

In view of the discussions made hereinabove, all writ petitions stand dismissed.

¶132

Stay applications and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.

¶133

A copy of this order be placed in each of the connected files.

¶134

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶135

Ashu/11-16

Dr. Sukhpal Mali S/O Shri Ramdev Mali v. the Management Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Sukhpal Mali S/O Shri Ramdev Mali v. the Management Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rsrtc Jaipur Vs Digamber Singh

State of Raj Vs R C S a T and Ors.

Mukhraj Meena S/O Shri Champaram Meena Vs District Collector Dausa

Balram S/O Late Shri Sultan Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dr. Arun Kumar Chaturvedi S/O Sh. B.S. Chaturvedi Vs the Management Committee

Dr Anil Kumar Mathur S/O Lt. Shri Ghanshyam Narayan Mathur Vs the Management Committee