Partly allowed

Anjuman Talimul Muslemeen/Secr v. R N G E I T and Ors.

Rajasthan HC20 Sept 2024CW/6871/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's factual finding regarding recognition of services despite the petitioner's initial class of appointment. However, due to the Society's stubborn non-compliance with past orders over 25 years, the Court directed immediate payment of awarded dues with enhanced interest.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay dues of Rs. 1200 scale with 6% interest; 15% interest if not paid in 90 days personal liability; parity benefits within 3 months if similarly situated aided employees' services regula

Anjuman Talimul Muslemeen/Secr Vs R N G E… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:26382]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6871/1999

¶4

The Anjuman Talimul Muslemeen, through the Secretary, Management Committee, Moti doongari Road, Jaipur

¶5

The Head Master, Muslim Primary School, Geejgarh House, Mohalla Mahawatan, Ghatgate, Jaipur.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Rajasthan Non-government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur Through its Presiding Officer, Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶9

State of Rajasthan through its Secretary to the Govt. Department of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶10

The Director of Primary and Secondary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner

¶11

The District Education Officer, (Boys) Jaipur.

¶12

Jamilul Islam S/o Shri Qamar Ul Islam, Resident of 5316, C/o Qasim Khan Pathan, Near Ragiroon Ki Kothi, Ghatgate, Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶13

----Respondent

¶14

Connected With

¶15

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4360/2002

¶16

Jamilul Islam aged about 42 years S/o Shri Kamrul Islam, C/o Kasim Khan Pathan, Near Regron Ki Kothi, Ghatgate, Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶17

----Petitioner

¶18

Versus

¶19

The Rajasthan Non-government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur Through its Presiding Officer, Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶20

State of Rajasthan through its Secretary to the Govt. Department of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶21

The Director of Primary and Secondary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner

¶22

The District Education Officer, (Boys) Jaipur.

¶23

The Anjuman Talimul Muslemeen, through the Secretary, Management Committee, Moti doongari Road, Jaipur

(2 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:26382]

[CW-6871/1999]

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2252/2012

¶29

Jamilul Islam aged about 42 years S/o Shri Kamrul Islam, C/o Kasim Khan Pathan, Near Regron Ki Kothi, Ghatgate, Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶30

----Petitioner

¶31

Versus

¶32

State of Rajasthan through Secretary Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶33

Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶34

Anjuman Talimul Muslemeen Muslim School Moti Doondari through its Secretary, Jaipur.

¶35

Headmaster, Muslim Primary School, G House, Mahavatan Ka Mohalla, Ghat Gate, Jaipur.

¶36

----Respondents

¶37

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankit Sethi with Mr. Rupendra Singh Rathore Mr. Chandra Shekhar for Mr. Bharat Saini, AGC

¶38

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order

¶39

Reserved on :: 22/05/2024 Pronounced on :: 20/09/2024

¶40

As per the directions of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, the present bunch of petitions were listed before this Court under the head of ‘Legacy/Old Matters’, warranting preferred hearing and early disposal.

¶41

Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the sides, as the petitions stemmed from an interconnected factual matrix, the same were jointly taken up for final disposal.

(3 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:26382]

[CW-6871/1999]

By virtue of the present bunch of the petitions, a crosschallenge is raised against the order impugned dated 17.08.1999, by both- the ‘Society/Institution’ (petitioner in S.B. CWP No. 6871/1999) as well as the ‘Employee’ (petitioner in S.B. CWP No. 4360/2002). Additionally, S.B. CWP No. 2252/2012 is preferred by the ‘Employee’ with a prayer for consideration of the candidature of the employee on the same pedestal as his similarly situated coworkers/employees for absorption in service and consequential relief(s).

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner-Employee (S.B. CWP No. 4360/2002) has submitted that the petitioner Jamil-Ul-Islam was appointed as a Class IV employee in the respondent-Institute on 08.08.1996. However, with effect from 01.09.1986, the petitioneremployee started rendering his services as Teacher Grade III in the institute run by the respondent-society, till the Year 1995, for a continuous period of 9 years. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had acquired ‘Adib Kamil’ Degree in the Year 1989, which is equivalent to the qualification of B.A. It is averred that the said degree was acquired by the petitioner-employee with the due permission of the respondent-society/institute as there was a scarcity of teachers and/or resources. Learned counsel for the petitioner-employee averred that after rendering services as Teacher Grade-III for 9 years, the petitioner-employee pursued the respondent-society/institute for regularization on the said post. However, much to the shock and surprise of the petitioneremployee, the respondent-society/institute restrained the

(4 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:26382]

[CW-6871/1999]

petitioner-employee from entering the institute’s premises and from signing in the attendance register.

¶51

Therefore, being aggrieved of the harassment caused by the respondent-society/institute when posed with the claim of regularization, the petitioner filed an application under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Act, 1989 (hereinafter, Act of 1989) before the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner-employee further submitted that after hearing both the sides, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 17.08.1999, by way of which the learned Tribunal duly held as under:-

¶52

5.1 That the petitioner-employee had indeed rendered his services on the post of Teacher Grade III at the institute run by the respondent-society for a continuous period of 9 years i.e. from 1986-1995, despite the fact that he was initially appointed as a Class IV employee (Peon).

¶53

5.2 That despite the aforesaid recognition of the services rendered, the learned Tribunal did not delve into the aspect of regularization as the purview of the Act of 1989 precluded it from doing so. However, looking to the services rendered by the petitioner-employee, the learned Tribunal directed the respondentsociety/institute to pay to the petitioner-employee wages equivalent to the minimum payscale of 1200-2500 i.e. Rs. 1200 along with benefits, without increment, for the period subsisting between 16.05.1988 to 15.05.1995.

¶54

In this background, learned counsel for the petitioneremployee submitted that being aggrieved of the order impugned

(5 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:26382]

[CW-6871/1999]

dated 17.08.1999, the Institute/society preferred a writ petition before this Court, numbering S.B. CWP No. 6871/1999, wherein no interim protection was granted to the Institute/Society precluding them from making the payment as directed vide order impugned dated 17.08.1999. However, despite the same, till date i.e. even after the lapse of 25 years from the passing of the said order, no compliance has been effectuated qua the order impugned.

¶59

Learned counsel for the petitioner-employee further submitted that the petitioner-employee, being aggrieved of the order impugned dated 17.08.1999 as well, insofar as it pertained to non-regularization of the petitioner-employee’s services, preferred a review application against the order impugned, which came to be dismissed as well vide order dated 10.09.2001. Therefore, challenging the aforesaid orders, the petitioneremployee preferred S.B. CWP No. 4360/2002.

¶60

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner-employee submitted that during the period subsisting between the Years 1995-2005, on account of the wrongful actions of the Society/Institute by way of which the petitioner-employee was restrained from rendering his services as Teacher Grade III despite the recognition of the same by the learned Tribunal, the petitioner remained idle and faced extreme financial harassment making it impossible to run his household. Therefore, looking to the financial direness and for survival, the petitioner preferred an application in S.B. CWP No. 4360/2002, to work under protest as a Class IV employee till the final adjudication of the petition.

(6 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:26382]

[CW-6871/1999]

As a result, the petitioner-employee was allowed to render services as a Class IV employee in the Year 2005, which he continued to do so until his superannuation in the Year 2021. However, even during the said period, the petitioner-employee was never paid in parity with the other government employees working on the same post. Learned counsel further submitted that on 12.12.2005, this Court passed an interim order in favour of the petitioner-employee whereby the Institute/Society was required to allow the petitioner-employee to render his services as a Class IV employee along with all the benefits the post attracts, without prejudice to any of his rights, until the final adjudication of the petition.

¶65

Learned counsel for the petitioner-employee further submitted that in the Year 2010, the Society/Institute with the malafide intention of harassing the petitioner, did not pay the petitioner as per the pay scale of Class IV employees, whilst not keeping parity in pay with government employees on the same post, in total dereliction of the order dated 12.12.2005 and despite the application of the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Services Rules 2010 which provided for absorbing the employees of NonGovernment recognized and aided institutions in Government Services.

¶66

Therefore, being aggrieved of the aforesaid actions of the Society/Institute, the petitioner moved a second stay application wherein it was prayed that the Society/Institute consider the case of the petitioner as per the Rules of 2010 and for the issuance of directions to the effect that the petitioner-employee be paid within

(7 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:26382]

[CW-6871/1999]

the meaning of the order dated 12.12.2005, as passed by this Court, maintaining parity qua the petitioner-employee with the other employees on the same post. As a result, vide order dated 23.09.2011, this Court again issued directions to the Society/Institute to pay the dues of the petitioner within the meaning of the order dated 12.12.2005 maintaining the parity in pay with government employees and in consonance with the settled law. Simultaneously, on the aspect of absorption, liberty was granted to the petitioner to prefer a fresh writ petition for application of the Rules of 2010. 12. In this comprehensive background, learned counsel for the petitioner-employee submitted that in spite of the passing of 20 years, and orders dated 12.12.2005 and 23.09.2011 mandating/requiring the Society/Institute to pay the arrears to the petitioner-employee as ordered vide order impugned dated 17.08.1999, no such payment has been made till date, in blatant violation of this Court’s said orders. Learned counsel further submitted that in the contempt proceedings in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 507/2022, the Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 03.11.2022 had expressly obligated the Director of Secondary Education to immediately release the dues payable to the petitioner-employee as per the directions issued by this Court from time to time, as noted above, and also in sync with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Manju Saxena and Ors: Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 13791/2019, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed the compliance to be made within a period of eight weeks.

(8 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:26382]

[CW-6871/1999]

Therefore, in conclusion, learned counsel for the petitioneremployee argued that despite the passing of the orders dated 12.12.2005, 23.09.2011 and 03.11.2022, and the petitioneremployee having superannuated in the Year 2021 without receiving proper pay, no compliance has been made to the order impugned dated 17.08.1999, which is against the mandate of law and the principles of natural and swift justice. Moreover, during the course of hearing, the matter was even referred for mediation wherein the petitioner-employee claimed payment of arrears to the tune of Rs. 18.27 lacs, but the same was turned down by the Society/Institute. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioneremployee has prayed that the instant petition be allowed in terms of the prayers so advanced. In support of the arguments advanced, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments enunciated in Neelima Shrivastava vs. State of U.P.: Civil Appeal No. 4840/2021 , Bhagwan Das and Ors. vs. State of Haryana reported in (1987) 4 SCC 634 and State of Haryana vs. Chiranjit Singh and Ors. reported in (2006) 9 SCC 321 .

¶75

14 . Per contra , learned counsel for the respondentInstitute/Society (petitioner in S.B. CWP No. 6871/1999) has submitted that the Society-Anjuman Talimul Muslemeen, Jaipur is a registered society having dozens of institutes governed by the Act of 1989, which came into effect from 01.04.1993. Learned counsel submitted that the Society, has a central office approved, recognized and aided by the Government of Rajasthan, through which the all the institutions of the Society are administered/run.

(9 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:26382]

[CW-6871/1999]

Whilst disputing the averments put forth by the counsel for the petitioner-employee, learned counsel for the Society/Institute submitted as under:-

¶80

14.1 That the petitioner-employee was appointed as a Class IV Servant in the Central Office of the Society vide order dated 08.08.1986 from the list sent by Employment Exchange.

¶81

14.2 The services of the petitioner-employee were confirmed as Class IV on 01.09.1987. At the time of joining, the educational qualifications of the petitioner-employee were middle class pass only.

¶82

14.3 That an agreement was executed between the petitioner-employee and the Society as per the Grant-in Aid Rules 1963, where the petitioner-employee was shown as a Class IV servant only. Moreover, the entire service record of the petitioneremployee has recognized the employee to be of Class IV, to which no objection was raised by the petitioner-employee, up until the present litigation.

¶83

14.4 That the petitioner-employee, who was only middle class pass at the time of appointment as Class IV employee, applied to appear in the Secondary Examination in ‘English’ subject only, as he already possessed the certificate of ‘Adib’ in Urdu so as to become equivalent to Matric.

¶84

14.5 That subsequently, the petitioner-employee requested the management of the Society to put his services as a Class IV employee at the disposal of the Muslim Primary School, Jaipur, which was nearer to his residence. Thereafter, the petitioner-

(10 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:26382]

[CW-6871/1999]

employee started teaching to some lower primary classes without any order of appointment of teacher by the Central Office.

¶89

In this background, learned counsel for the Society/Institute submitted that the petitioner-employee preferred an application under Section 21 of the Act of 1989 before the learned Tribunal for regularization and confirmation after a period of 3 years of service and for payment of salary equivalent to that of Teacher Grade III along with interest and PF. In response, the Society/Institute opposed the said application, in light of the fact that the petitioner-employee was admittedly a Class IV employee. Moreover, commencing the Year 1995, the petitioner-employee was on willful absence. Therefore, the order impugned dated 17.08.1999, as passed by the learned Tribunal, mandating the payment for a period of 9 years qua the post of Teacher Grade III is unjust and arbitrary, as the petitioner-employee was a Class IV employee (Peon), as opposed to a Teacher Grade III.

¶90

Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the sides, scanned the record of the instant petition and perused through the judgments cited at Bar. 17. It is trite law that there is a limited scope of interference with a well-reasoned order while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is a well settled principle of law that in the guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot convert itself into a court of appeal, re-engaging with the determination of facts. It is equally well settled, that the supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate Tribunals within the limits of

(11 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:26382]

[CW-6871/1999]

their authority and seeing that they obey the law. Though the powers under Article 227 are wide, they must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors.

¶95

Upon an assiduous perusal of the record of the instant batch of writ petitions, including the order impugned dated 17.08.1999 passed by the learned Tribunal, the following germane factual considerations have come to light, namely:-

¶96

18.1 That in the present dispute, cross petitions are filed against the order impugned dated 17.08.1999, by both- the ‘Society/Institution’ (petitioner in S.B. CWP No. 6871/1999) as well as the ‘Employee’ (petitioner in S.B. CWP No. 4360/2002). Additionally, S.B. CWP No. 2252/2012 is preferred by the ‘Employee’ with a prayer for absorption.

¶97

18.2 That the Anjuman Talimul Muslemeen, Jaipur is a registered Society in Jaipur, which is run by a Management Committee, administering/managing dozens of schools vide its Central Office. The Society/Institute is a majority institute, which is approved, aided and recognized by the Government of Rajasthan. The Rajasthan Non-Govt. Educational Institutions Act, 1989, which came into force w.e.f. 01.04.1993 is applicable qua the Society, only for the period commencing subsequent to the said date.

¶98

18.3 That the petitioner-employee admittedly possessed middle-class qualifications, as a consequence of which, he was appointed as a Class IV employee in the Central Office of the Society on 08.08.1986 under the reference of Employment

[2024:RJ-JP:26382]

[CW-6871/1999]

(12 of 15)

Exchange. The said fact of employment as well as the educational qualification is reflected by the agreement so entered into between the Society and the petitioner-employee as well as the latter’s service record.

¶103

18.4 That pursuant to having joined the duties as a Class IV employee on the post of Peon, with due permission of the institute, certain additional qualifications were obtained by the petitioner-employee, including the certificate of an ‘Adib’ in the Urdu Language, which is equivalent to the Metric Qualification.

¶104

18.5 That in this background, the petitioner-employee had requested the management of the Society to put his services as a Class IV employee at the disposal of the Muslim Primary School, Jaipur.

¶105

18.6 That the learned Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence available on record, has given a finding of fact that though the petitioner-employee joined the services of the Society as a Class IV employee, subsequent to his transfer at the Muslim Primary School, during the period subsisting between the Year 1986 to 1995, the Society/Institute had benefitted from his services as a Teacher who conducted classes for the lower primary grades. In this regard, the learned Tribunal held that any teacher, as per the guidelines of the Education Department, teaching the primary classes, despite being unskilled, can be recognized as a Teacher Grade III.

¶106

Therefore, considering the factual finding which established the factum of the petitioner-employee having rendered services on the post of Teacher Grade III for a period of 9 years, despite

[2024:RJ-JP:26382]

[CW-6871/1999]

(13 of 15)

having been appointed as a Class IV Peon, the learned Tribunal whilst passing the order impugned dated 17.08.1999, did not comment upon the regularization of the services of the petitioneremployee as a Teacher Grade III, but rather passed an order taking note of the balance of convenience, whereby a specific amount with allowance and benefits under the payscale of Teacher Grade III was awarded to the petitioner-employee, for the prescribed period of 9 years only. Therefore, the order impugned dated 17.08.1999, which was passed looking to the balance of convenience, while rewarding the services rendered by the petitioner-employee as Teacher Grade III whilst also taking note of his initial appointment as Class IV Peon, calls for no interference of this Court.

¶111

In the opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal has passed a well-reasoned speaking order and after consideration of material aspects and evidence, arrived at a logical conclusion. This Court is in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted by the learned Tribunal. No palpable error has crept in the order impugned dated 17.08.1999, warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶112

However, having taken note of the reasonability and infallibility of the order impugned dated 17.08.1999, which was passed after having taken note of the balance of convenience for both the sides, this Court cannot help but agonizingly take note of the fact that despite the order for payment of arrears having been passed in the Year 1999 in favour of the petitioner-employee Jamil-Ul-Islam, no such payment has been made till date by the

(14 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:26382]

[CW-6871/1999]

Society, even after the lapse of 25 years. The agony further perpetuates by the actions of the Anjuman Talimul Muslemeen, Jaipur (Society) which has continued to act in disobeyance of the orders dated 12.12.2005 and 23.09.2011, passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4360/2002 mandating compliance of the order dated 17.08.1999, in the absence of any interim protection having been granted in favour of the Society.

¶117

As a result, in cumulative light of the aforesaid, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of S.B. CWP Nos. 6871/1999 and 4360/2002, which have been filed against the order impugned dated 17.08.1999, with a direction to the Society- Anjuman Talimul Muslemeen, Jaipur to immediately effectuate compliance with the order impugned dated 17.08.1999. While doing so, the Society- Anjuman Talimul Muslemeen, Jaipur shall be required to pay the dues of Mr. Jamil-Ul-Islam with interest of 6% from the date of the Tribunal’s order, against the amount so calculated for the relief granted by the Tribunal. If the said amount is not paid within a period 90 days from the date of passing of this order, an enhanced rate of 15% interest shall be applicable, which shall be paid by the Management Committee of the Anjuman Talimul Muslemeen, Jaipur, in their personal capacity, equally.

¶118

Whereas, S.B. CWP No. 2252/2012 is disposed of in light of the order dated 03.11.2022 passed in D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 507/2022 and it is held that if the Society- Anjuman Talimul Muslemeen, Jaipur, being an aided institute has claimed any aid and regularized/absorbed employees, whose service has been identical to that of the employee- Mr. Jamil-Ul-Islam, then the

(15 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:26382]

[CW-6871/1999]

same benefit as accorded to such employees for the relevant period be extended in favour of Mr. Jamil-Ul-Islam, within a period of three months, otherwise the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a fresh contempt/appropriate petition against the said inaction.

¶123

In light of the aforesaid, the present petitions are disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶124

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶125

Pooja /2-5

Anjuman Talimul Muslemeen/Secr v. R N G E I T and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjuman Talimul Muslemeen/Secr v. R N G E I T and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul @ Sanjay S/O Babulal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Prashant Jat Son of Ramsahay Jat, Vs State of Rajasthan

Babulal Sharma S/O Badrinarayan Sharma, Vs State of Rajasthan

Santosh W/O Shri Hari Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S G.O. Mills Vs State of Rajasthan

Naval Dwivedi S/O Ramsharan Dwivedi Vs State of Rajasthan