Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan ... vs Sachin Dutt Sharma S/O Late Shri ... on 21 May, 2019
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq, Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.430/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7937/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Primary School, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Smt. Mamta Gangwal W/o Sh. Praveen Kumar Gangwal, R/o
Gangwal Bhawan, Hameer Colony, Railway Station Ke Picchhe,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Elementary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
Connected With
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.269/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4638/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Senior Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Shivji Ram Kumawat S/o Late Shri Bhanwar Lal Kumawat,
Resident of Out of Bhihari Pol, Naya Shahar, Kishangarh, District
Ajmer (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.270/2019
IN
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM)
(2 of 47) [SAW-430/2019]
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4615/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Senior Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Smt. Santosh Chaudhary w/o Sh. Virendra Singh Chaudhary,
R/o 30/116, Dwarika Deep, Teja Vila ke Pass, Shivaji Nagar,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.323/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4624/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Senior Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Smt. Sheela Purohit W/o sh. Bahadur Singh Purohit, R/o Modi
Mohalla, Purana Sahar, Kishangarh, Distt. Ajmer (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.325/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4626/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Senior Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM)
(3 of 47) [SAW-430/2019]
Versus
1.Dhanraj Jain S/o Shri Norat Mal Jain, R/o Plot No.64-A, Kusum
Vihar Colony, Madanganj-Kishangarh, District (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.331/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4637/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Senior Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Smt. Seema Devi Mishra, W/o Sh. Praveen Tiwari, R/o House
No.1373, Kotada Aawasiya Yojana, Pragari Nagar, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.332/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4617/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Senior Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Mukesh Chand Rathi, Son of Shri Mangal Chand Rathi, Resident
of 'Sri Sadan' Dargad Dharam shala Ke Pichhe, Main Road, Shivaji
Nagar, Madanganj-Kishangarh, Ajmer (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM)
(4 of 47) [SAW-430/2019]
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.365/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4646/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Senior Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Smt. Manju Rani Jain W/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar Jain, R/o 121,
Indra Nagar, Jaipur Road, Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.366/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4632/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Senior Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Padam Chand Jain S/o Late Shri Nathu Lal Jain, R/o 184-A, Near
Shiv Mandir, Mitra Niwas Colony, Madanganj-Kishangarh, District
Ajmer (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.367/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4647/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM)
(5 of 47) [SAW-430/2019]
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Senior Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Nawal Kishor Sharma S/o Shri Kalu Ram Sharma, R/o Hariyana
Bhawan, Subhash Colony, Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer
(Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.368/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4625/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Senior Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Smt. Usha Jain w/o Shri Rajesh Kumar Jain, R/o Dahich colony,
Behind Tank Petrol Pump, Roopangarh Road, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.369/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4631/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Senior Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM)
(6 of 47) [SAW-430/2019]
1.Vijan Kumar, S/o Shri Daulat Ram, R/o 126-B, Shubham Deep
Avasiya Colony, Shivaji Nagar, Madanganj-Kishangarh, District
Ajmer (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.370/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4643/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Senior Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Smt. Urmila Sharma W/o Sh. Ramswaroop Sharma, R/o Daga
Gali, Ajmer Road, Madanganj-Kishangarh, Ajmer (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.371/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4627/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Senior Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Smt. Kiran Joshi W/o Sh. Shyam Sundar Joshi, R/o 86, Mitra
Niwas Colony, Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM)
(7 of 47) [SAW-430/2019]
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.373/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4616/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Senior Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Dalu Ram Kumawat S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad Kumawat, R/o 26,
Shivlok Colony, Near Virat Nagar, MirjaBawdi Road, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.374/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4642/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Senior Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Smt. Lalita Jain W/o Late Shri Satish Chandra Jain, R/o 27/60,
Jain Colony, Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.375/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4619/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM)
(8 of 47) [SAW-430/2019]
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Senior Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Smt. Saroj Kumari Sharma W/o Dr. Mukesh Joshi, R/o 1/8, New
Housing Board, Khoda Ganesh Ji Road, Madanganj-Kishangarh,
Tehsil-Kishangarh, Ajmer (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.376/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7920/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Primary School, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Smt. Sharli James, W/o Sh. Harman James, R/o "J" Veela, Jain
Colony, Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Elementary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.379/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4622/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Senior Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM)
(9 of 47) [SAW-430/2019]
1.Kaushal Kishor Rathi S/o Shri Hotilal Rathi, R/o C/o Narayan
Sadan, Jain Colony, Madanganj-Kishangarh, Tehsil Kishangarh,
District-Ajmer (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.380/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4649/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Senior Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Rai Singh Parihar son of late Shri Dashrath Singh, Resident of
64, Kusum Vihar Colony, Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer
(Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.381/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4648/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Senior Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Gayanendra Kumar Varshneya S/o Shri Shriniwas Varshneya,
R/o 67-A, Shri Vashnerya, Aadinath Colony, Jaipur Road,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, Teh. Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM)
(10 of 47) [SAW-430/2019]
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.382/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4623/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Senior Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Smt. Sushila Goyal, W/o Sh. Mahesh Chandra Goyal, R/o Pawan
Kunj, Jain Colony, Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.).
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.384/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4640/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Senior Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Smt. Sushila Mehta W/o Late Shri Kishan Singh Mehta, R/o
Mehta Medicals, Kabadi Godam ke Samne, Engineer Gali,
Roopangarh Road, Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.385/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4628/2017
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM)
(11 of 47) [SAW-430/2019]
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Senior Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Kailash Chand Jagid S/o Sh. Norat Mal Khati, R/o Behind Power
House, Krishnapuri Rathore Tailor Ke Pass, Ajmer Road,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, Ajmer (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.387/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4645/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Senior Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Ushwant Kumar Surana S/o Shri Padam Chand Surana, R/o 79,
Jeevan Jyoti Nagar, Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.427/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4618/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Senior Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM)
(12 of 47) [SAW-430/2019]
1.Guman Singh Panwar S/o Late Shri Sujan Singh, R/o C/o Shri
Kishan Lal Tanwar, 49-A, Kusum Vihar Colony, Behind of P.T.S
Maidan, Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.428/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4633/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Senior Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Mehram Choudhary, Son of Shri Ladu ram Choudhary, Resident
of Village and POST-Mayapur, Via-Parbatsar, District Nagour (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.429/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7934/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Primary School, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Smt. Sushila Rawat, W/o Sh. Kailash Rawat, R/o "Ashish Niwas"
Shivaji Nagar, Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Elementary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM)
(13 of 47) [SAW-430/2019]
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.431/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4641/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Senior Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Smt. Shashi Kala Maheshwari W/o Sh. Prem Chand Jaithliya, R/o
Shri Nikunj, Mali Mauhalla, Shivaji Nagar, Madanganj-Kishangarh,
Ajmer (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.432/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7919/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Primary School, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Smt. Mitlesh Gupta W/o late Sh. Radha Krishan, R/o Amar Deep,
Plot No.227, (A+B), In front of M.S.S. Public School, Mitra Niwas
Colony, City Road, Madanganj-Kishangarh, Ajmer (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Elementary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.442/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4620/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM)
(14 of 47) [SAW-430/2019]
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Senior Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Bhanwar Singh, S/o Shri Onar Singh R/o Ganesh Mandir Ke
Picche, Nale Ke Passs, Shivaji Nagar, Kishangarh, District Ajmer
(Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.443/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4639/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Senior Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Dr. Madur Prakash Vashnerya S/o Late Sh. Ved Prakash
Vashnerya, R/o 1/226, Housing Board Colony, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.444/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7927/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Primary School, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM)
(15 of 47) [SAW-430/2019]
1.Smt. Usha Sharma, w/o Dr. B.K. Sharma, R/o Lecturers Colony,
City Road, Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Elementary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.445/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7936/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Primary School, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Smt. Meenakshi Jain W/o Sh. Rakesh Ajmera, R/o 241, Ajmera
Kutir, Pragati Nagar, Kotada, U.I.T. Colony, Ajmer (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Elementary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.446/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7918/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Primary School, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Smt. Nirmala Jain W/o Late Shri Anant Prasad Tank, R/o 49-B,
Kusum Bihar Colony, Sector IInd, City Road, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Elementary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM)
(16 of 47) [SAW-430/2019]
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.447/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4644/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Senior Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Kishan Lal Tanwar S/o Late Shri Kana Ji Tanwar, R/o 49-A,
Kusum Vihar Colony, P.T.S Maidan ke Pichhe, C.T Road,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.448/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4621/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Senior Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Smt. Meena Kumari Vijay W/o Sh. Om Prakash Vijay, R/o House
No.9-10, J-Block, Aditya Mills Labour Colony, Shiv Mandir Gali
(Aditya Mills Colony), Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.)
----Applicant/Respondent
2.Director, Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.450/2019
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7935/2017
1.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan Parishad, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM)
(17 of 47) [SAW-430/2019]
2.Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Primary School, Madanganj-
Kishangarh, District Ajmer through its Secretary.
----Non-Applicants/Appellants
Versus
1.Sachin Dutt Sharma, S/o Late Sh. Ramakant Sharma, R/o
447/1, Shiv Kund, Behind Ram Krishan Store, Nagina Bag, Ashok
Marg, Ajmer (Raj.)
2.Lokesh Dutt Sharma, S/o Late Sh. Ramakant Sharma, R/o
447/1, Shiv Kund, Behind Ram Krishan Store, Nagina Bag, Ashok
Marg, Ajmer (Raj.)
3.Neetu Dadhich, D/o Late Sh. Ramakant Sharma, R/o Shastri
Colony, Pushkar Road, District Ajmer (Raj.)
All above applicants/petitioners are legal heris of late Smt.
Manorama Sharma W/o late Shri Ramakant Sharma.
----Applicants/Respondents
4.Director, Elementary Education, State of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Non-Applicant/Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vivek Dangi, Mr. Hitesh Jatawat,
Ms. Sommya Chaturvedi and Mr.
James Bedi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.L. Saini, AAG; Mr. D.P. Sharma;
Mr. Aman Pareek in SAW No.
270/2019, 367/2019, 379/2019,
380/2019 and 387/2019.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
Reportable
21/05/2019
(Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq)
All these appeals are directed against the common
judgment dated 18.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of
this Court, whereby applications filed by the appellants for recall
of the orders dated 12.01.2018 and 07.08.2018 passed by the
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM)
(18 of 47) [SAW-430/2019]
learned Single Judge, have been dismissed. Also under challenge
are the aforesaid orders dated 12.01.2018 and 07.08.2018 passed
by the learned Single Bench of this Court. Learned Single Judge
vide order dated 12.01.2018, which was based on consent of the
parties, directed the appellant-Managing Committee to pay full
amount of gratuity along with interest @ 6% p.a. till it is actually
paid to the employees concerned and further 20% share of the
management in respect of other arrears of the employees was
also ordered to be released. Vide order dated 07.08.2018, time to
comply with the aforesaid order dated 12.01.2018 was extended
by further two months on the applications filed by the appellants.
Mr. Vivek Dangi, learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in
directing payment of gratuity and leave encashment to the
respondents much prior to their retirement/ superannuation/
termination of their services. Even though the appellants have
paid their share of arrears of 6 th Pay Commission, senior and
selection scale and full amount of leave encashment, but the
respondents would not be entitled to gratuity and encashment of
privilege leaves at this stage as the same is considered as retiral
benefits. The respondents are still in service and have yet not
retired. Learned counsel referred to Rule 82(1) of the Rajasthan
Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-
aid and Service conditions etc.) Rules, 1993 (for short 'the Rules
of 1993') and argued that the employees of the aided educational
institutions shall be entitled to gratuity as admissible under the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act of 1972'), as
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM)
(19 of 47) [SAW-430/2019]
amended from time to time. Section 4 of the Act of 1972 provides
that gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination
of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for
not less than five years, (a) on his superannuation or; (b) on his
retirement or resignation; and (c) on his death or disablement due
to accident or disease. The respondents in the present matters,
have neither attained the age of superannuation, nor have retired
or resigned from service and not even become incapable to work
on account of death or accident or incurable disease. They have
rather been absorbed in the services of the State Government
under the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules,
2010 (for short 'the Rules of 2010') and therefore they continue to
be in service. The respondents cannot claim payment of gratuity
at premature stage.
Mr. Vivek Dangi, learned counsel argued that as per
Rule 47 of the Rules of 1993 read with Rule 91B of the Rajasthan
Service Rules, 1951 (for short 'the Rules of 1951'), the benefit of
encashment of privilege leaves is also admissible only on
retirement of the employee whereas the respondents are still in
service. Reliance is placed on judgment dated 07.03.2018
rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Managing
Committee, Shri Raghunath Higher Secondary School,
Laxmangarh (Sikar) & Another Vs. Mahesh Kumar Sharma
& Another (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1758/2017 along
with other connected appeals) wherein the appellant-Managing
Committee was directed to pay to the State the amount of
gratuity and leave encashment. Learned counsel submitted that
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM)
(20 of 47) [SAW-430/2019]
despite submission of the due drawn statements of the
respondents-employees along with original service books/records,
the State Government has failed to verify the same and make re-
fixation of salary and other emoluments of the respondents as per
recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission for the period from
2006 to 2011. In these circumstances, it is not possible for the
appellants to even finally ascertain the amount of gratuity or leave
encashment payable to the respondents. Reliance is placed on
notification issued by the State Government bearing No.
F.12(8)FD/Rules/2008 Pt.I dated 06.12.2017, according to which
the employees like the respondents, who have joined government
service under the Rules of 2010, become entitled to payment of
gratuity after completing five years of continuous service. It is
argued that on true interpretation of Section 4(3) of the Act of
1972 read with Rule 55(1) of the Rajasthan Pension Rules, 1996
(for short 'the Rules of 1996'), the amount of gratuity payable to
the respondents-employees in toto (i.e. total service in non-
government institution plus total service in government
institutions) shall not exceed Rs. 10 Lacs. However by subsequent
amendment, this amount has been enhanced to Rs. 20 Lacs w.e.f.
29.03.2018 or one fourth of their emoluments for each completed
six monthly period of qualifying service, subject to a maximum of
16.5 times the emoluments, whichever is less. Similarly, as per
Rule 91B of the Rules of 1951, the respondents on superannuation
would be entitled for leave encashment of unutilised privilege
leaves, but not exceeding 300 days, for the entire period of
service in non-government institution plus total service in
government. Learned counsel therefore argued that the liability to
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM)
(21 of 47) [SAW-430/2019]
pay the gratuity and leave encashment cannot be fastened upon
the appellants or else there may arise an anomalous situation
wherein the employees like the respondents, who have rendered
services under both non-government as well as government
institutions, would become entitled to gratuity much more than
the permissible statutory limit.
Mr. Vivek Dangi, learned counsel submitted that the
total amount of gratuity payable to an employee for services
rendered by him/her both under the appellant-institution as well
as State Government can be ascertained only when he/she
retires/attains the age of superannuation/discontinued from
government service on account of termination or accident or
death, subject to the maximum permissible statutory limit as
provided under Section 4(3) of the Act of 1972 read with Rule
55(1) of the Rules of 1996. The appellant-institution can only
thereafter be directed to deposit its proportionate share for the
period of service rendered by the respondents-employees under it,
with the State Government. Learned counsel submitted that
objection of the respondents that the appellants having not
challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 5(x) of the Rules of
2010 would be estopped from questioning the correctness of the
direction requiring them to pay their share of the gratuity and
leave encashment. It is argued that Rule 5(x) of the Rules of
2010 makes it apparently clear that the non-government
educational institution will be liable to make payment of gratuity
to the employees absorbed under the Rules of 2010 for the period
of service rendered by them under the said institution. The said
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM)
(22 of 47) [SAW-430/2019]
period shall not be counted for payment of gratuity by the State
Government. But then the learned counsel submitted that there
does not arise any occasion for the appellants to assail the said
rule, particularly when the appellants clearly and unequivocally
undertake to make payment of gratuity for the period the
respondents-employees were working with them prior to their
appointment under the Rules of 2010. Learned counsel argued
that the direction of the learned Single Judge to pay interest @
6% per annum on gratuity to the respondents, who are still in
service, for the aforesaid reason, is wholly unsustainable. It is trite
that Article 226 of the Constitution is an equitable jurisdiction
wherein the Courts while doing substantial justice, have to balance
the equities.
Contesting the argument of the respondents that
appeals being filed against the consent orders are not
maintainable, learned counsel for the appellants argued that it is
settled that there cannot be any estoppel against statute.
Gratuity and leave encashment are retiral benefits and in terms of
provisions of Rule 82(1) of the Rules of 1993 read with Section
4(1) of the Act of 1972 as also Rule 91B of the Rules of 1951, the
same are payable to an employee on termination of employment
due to superannuation or retirement or resignation or on death or
disablement due to accident or disease. Learned counsel for the
appellants, in support of his arguments, relied upon the
judgments in State of Rajasthan & Another Vs. Surendra
Mohnot & Others, (2014) 14 SCC 77; Banwari Lal Vs.
Chando Devi (Smt.) (through Lrs.) & Another, (1993) 1 SCC
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM)
(23 of 47) [SAW-430/2019]
581; Damodar Valley Corporation Vs. Mrityunjoy Basu &
Others, (1995) ILR 1 Cal. 314; Veer Kunwar Singh
University Ad Hoc Teachers Association & Others Vs. Bihar
State University (C.C.) Service Commission & Others,
(2009) 17 SCC 184; State of Uttar Pradesh & Others Vs.
Ajay Kumar Sharma & Another, (2016) 15 SCC 289.
Mr. D.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents
opposed the appeals and submitted that the appeals against consent orders cannot be maintained. Order dated 12.01.2018 was passed with the consent of the parties including learned counsel for the appellant-management. It is precisely for this reason that the application filed by the appellant-management for recall of the aforesaid order was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 18.01.2019. Learned counsel argued that judgment has been rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Managing Committee, Shri Raghunath Higher Secondary School, Laxmangarh (Sikar) & Another Vs. Mahesh Kumar Sharma & Another (supra) ignoring the mandate of Rule 5(x) of the Rules of 2010 which inter alia provides that the period in the service of aided institution shall not be counted for payment of gratuity. The employees shall be free to obtain payment of gratuity from the respective grant in aid educational institution. This is because the relationship of employer and employees between the management and the respondents ceased to exist at the moment they were absorbed in the government service and therefore their services for that limited purpose can be taken to have been terminated as far as the management is concerned. He (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM) (24 of 47) [SAW-430/2019] submitted that the management wants to avoid payment of gratuity on one pretext or the other. In Managing Committee, Shri Raghunath Higher Secondary School, Laxmangarh (Sikar) & Another Vs. Mahesh Kumar Sharma & Another (supra), it has wrongly been held that the accumulated amount of gratuity as well as leave encashment for the period during which the teacher concerned worked with the private school would be required to be deposited by the management with the Government and the complete benefits would then be given by the State Government at the time of retirement of such teacher. In the present matters, so far as leave encashment is concerned, the same has already been paid and therefore the appellant- management is under obligation to pay the amount of gratuity in view of the Rule 5(x) of the Rules of 2010.
Mr. D.P. Sharma, learned counsel submitted that question of clubbing the services rendered with the appellant- institution and the Government does not arise. Referring to definition of "superannuation" under Section 2(r) of the Act of 1972, it is argued that since the respondents have ceased to be employee of the appellant-management and with their appointment in the government service under the Rules of 2010, they have vacated the sanctioned aided posts. They would be, as far as their appointment with the appellant is concerned, deemed superannuated. Rule 47 of the Rules of 1993 would not therefore apply in their case because their services are governed by the Rules of 2010 framed for that purpose and the same do not envisage carrying forward of leaves for the purpose of (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM) (25 of 47) [SAW-430/2019] encashment. Rule 91(B) of the Rules of 1951 is applicable only in respect of the employees, who have been appointed prior to the enforcement of the Rules of 1996. Rules of 1996 are applicable only in respect of employees, who have been appointed before enforcement of Rajasthan Civil Services (Contributory Pension) Rules, 2005, according to which the provisions of gratuity and pension and encashment of earned leave are not applicable in respect of the employees appointed after 2005 in the government service. Since the Rules of 2010 clearly provide that Rules of 1996 would not be applicable to the employees governed by these rules, the question of carrying forward of privilege leaves and gratuity does not arise.
Mr. C.L. Saini, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-State of Rajasthan opposed the appeals and argued that Rule 5 of the Rules of 2010 categorically provides for terms and conditions for appointment of employees in government service, who are working against the sanctioned aided posts on the date of commencement of the Rules. Rule 5(iv) of the Rules of 2010 provides that the employees appointed under the rules shall not be entitled for any promotion till they attain the age of superannuation. However, they shall be allowed the benefit of Assured Career Progression/Career Advancement Scheme as allowed to other employees of the State Government. The period from the date of their appointment on the sanctioned and aided posts would be counted for the purpose of grant of Assured Career Progression/Career Advancement Scheme. Rule 5(vii) of the Rules of 2010 provides that no arrears, (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM) (26 of 47) [SAW-430/2019] on any account whatsoever, (including arrears of salary, selection scale, Assured Career Progression or Career Advancement Scheme) shall be paid by the State Government for the period prior to the date of their joining in the Government after appointment under the rules. It is argued that Rule 5(viii) of the Rules of 2010 does not permit carrying forward of the balance of the privilege leaves and rather entitles such employees to get encashment of such privilege leaves from the respective grant in aid educational institution. Rule 5(x) of the Rules of 2010 has categorically provided that the period in the service of aided institution shall not be counted for payment of gratuity. The employee shall be free to obtain payment of gratuity from the respective grant in aid educational institution. The aforesaid rules thus clearly provide that the teachers, who have been appointed with the Government under the Rules of 2010, would not be entitled to claim any leave encashment and gratuity for the period prior to their appointment with the Government. The Division Bench of this Court while passing the judgment in Managing Committee, Shri Raghunath Higher Secondary School, Laxmangarh (Sikar) & Another Vs. Mahesh Kumar Sharma & Another (supra) failed to take into account the aforesaid mandatory rules, therefore, the said judgment, being per incurriam, cannot be applied to the present matters and direction of the Division Bench to the Management of the grant in aid educational institutions to deposit the amount of leave encashment and gratuity with the Government is not permissible under the Scheme of the Rules of 2010.
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM)
(27 of 47) [SAW-430/2019] It is argued that Rule 82 of the Rules of 1993 provides that the employees of aided institutions shall be entitled to gratuity as admissible under the Act of 1972 as amended from time to time. The aforesaid provisions will have to be therefore interpreted in the manner that after appointment of the respondents with the Government under the Rules of 2010, relationship of master and servant between the management of the aided educational institutions and the respondents-employees stood terminated and those employees would be entitled to claim not only the gratuity but also the leave encashment directly from the respective grant in aid educational institution. Reliance has been placed on the judgment in Rajasthan Welfare Society Vs. Director, Primary & Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner & 11 Others, 1998 (3) WLC (Raj.) Page 360, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the appellants are under legal obligation to make payment of gratuity and leave encashment directly to the respondents who were their employees and worked against the sanctioned aided posts prior to their appointment with the State Government.
We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record.
At the outset, we may make it clear that since we intend to decide the appeals on merits, we do not deem it appropriate to entertain and examine the preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the appeals on the premise that the appeals have been filed against the consent order and are not (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM) (28 of 47) [SAW-430/2019] maintainable. Even otherwise, there can be no estoppel against statute. If the consent given by learned counsel representing the parties in the Court is found to be contrary to the law, it does not bind either parties or even the Court and the parties cannot be precluded from raising the argument that such consent, being contrary to law, was erroneously given and there can be no estoppel against law. In taking this view, we find support from the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan & Another Vs. Surendra Mohnot & Others (supra). We may however hasten to add that we shall presently examine these matters on merits to find out if at all the consent so given was in conformity with law.
On merits, we find that the issue that arises for determination by this Court in the present bunch of appeals is whether the appellants-aided educational institutions are not obliged in law to pay to the respondents the amount of gratuity and encashment of privilege leaves after they have ceased to be in their service on account of their appointment with the State Government under the Rules of 2010. And related question would be whether the management of the appellants-aided educational institutions would be liable to transfer such amount to the State Government to be paid to the employees concerned simultaneously with their appointment with the Government or would be required to do so at the time of their superannuation from government service.
A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Managing Committee, Shri Raghunath Higher Secondary School, (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM) (29 of 47) [SAW-430/2019] Laxmangarh (Sikar) & Another Vs. Mahesh Kumar Sharma & Another (supra) has on this aspect of the matter held as under:
"So far as claim of gratuity and leave encashment are concerned, we are of the opinion that both are payable at the time of retirement, if it goes strictly in consonance to the Rules. The directions for payment of gratuity and leave encashment have been given midway. The non-appellant-employees were initially recruited by the appellant-institution but, subsequently, appointed in the State Services under the Rules of 2010. In view of the above, the accumulated amount of gratuity as well as leave encashment was directed to be paid to the State for the period employees worked with the management committee and complete benefit would then be given to the employees by the State on their retirement. The accumulated amount of leave encashment would be only to the extent of unaided portion.
To make balance and to remain in consonance to the Rules, the appellant- institution would determine the amount of gratuity and leave encashment for the period non-appellant-employees worked with them. The said amount would be deposited with the State Government or it would be deducted by the State from any amount payable to the appellant- institution pursuant to the directions in the case of Managing Committee, Pananbai Ramnath Poddar Senior Secondary School (supra) and applied to this case. It is, however, clarified that amount towards leave encashment would be accounted by the appellant-institution to the extent of their share in view of grant-in-aid but, for the gratuity, the entire amount would be payable by them, as indicated above."
Even though, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that as per Section 82(1) of the Rules of 1993, the employees of the aided educational institutions shall be entitled to gratuity as admissible under the Act of 1972 as amended from time to time. Section 4 of the Act of 1972 provides that gratuity is (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM) (30 of 47) [SAW-430/2019] payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years, on his superannuation, or retirement or resignation from service or on his death or disablement due to accident or disease. None of these conditions is attracted in the present case, therefore, the appellants can neither be required to pay the amount of gratuity to the respondents-employees directly, nor can they be required to deposit its proportionate share for the period of services rendered by the respondents with the State Government at the premature stage. This amount would be payable, if at all, at the time any of the aforesaid conditions is attracted including superannuation of the respondents-employees. Learned counsel for the appellants has also referred to notification dated 06.12.2017 issued by the State Government with respect to the teachers appointed in the government service under Rules of 2010 providing that they would be entitled to payment of gratuity after completing five years of continuous services but to this, learned counsel would like to add that period of their service with the appellants-aided educational institutions would be added to the services rendered by them with the Government. In our opinion however, the aforesaid notification has been issued only with a view to introducing minimum service required for the teachers appointed to the government service to claim gratuity and no more than that.
Reference has also been made by learned counsel for the appellant to Rule 55(1) of the Rules of 1996 to argue that the amount of gratuity payable to the respondents-employees is based (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM) (31 of 47) [SAW-430/2019] on total service rendered by the employee concerned, which has to be construed as total service, i.e. services rendered to the appellants-institutions and with the Government. We find ourselves unable to countenance this submission either. Total service rendered to private aided educational institutions, for the purpose of Rule 55(1) supra, has to be taken as one unit. We would like to think that merely because word, "total" has been used in this rule, does not mean total of the service rendered to private aided educational institutions and the Government. Rule 5 of the Rules of 2010 has stipulated special provisions to take care of such a situation as to how the entitlement of the employees of the aided educational institutions with regard to the payment of gratuity and leave encashment shall be regulated. On the same analogy, argument that as per Rule 91B of the Rules of 1951, the respondents-employees shall be entitled to encashment of unutilised privilege leaves to a maximum of 300 days in their total service, which should also include the services rendered by the respondents with aided government educational institution, also does not stand scrutiny. It is precisely for this reason that the Rules of 2010 provide a complete scheme for the employees of the non-government aided educational institutions working on the sanctioned posts, who are appointed with the Government.
We are conscious of the fact that we have taken a contrary view than the one expressed by the Co-ordinate Bench. In the normal course, we should have referred the matter to a Larger Bench to consider that the mandatory rules applicable to teachers of aided educational institutions appointed to government (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM) (32 of 47) [SAW-430/2019] service which were omitted from being considered by the Co- ordinate Bench in Managing Committee, Shri Raghunath Higher Secondary School, Laxmangarh (Sikar) & Another Vs. Mahesh Kumar Sharma & Another (supra), but since we are holding the said judgment per incuriam, we would prefer to examine the matters on merits.
The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak - (1988) 2 SCC 602 held that the per- incurium are those decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some inconsistent statutory provision or some authority binding on the Court concerned so that in such cases some part of the decision or some step in the reasoning on which it is based is found, on that account to be demonstrably wrong. If a decision has been given per in curiam, the Court can ignore it. The Supreme Court in State of Orissa & Another Vs. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436, held that "Incuria" literally means "carelessness". In practice per incuriam is taken to mean per ignoratium. The Courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. Thus the "quotable in law", is avoided and ignored if it is rendered, in ignoratium of a Statute or other binding authority. Reference may also be made to the decision in Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd. - (1944) 2 All ER 293. The Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Gurnam Kaur - (1989) 1 SCC 101, held that "A decision should be treated as given per incuriam when it is given in ignorance of the terms of a statute or of a rule having the force of a statute. (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM)
(33 of 47) [SAW-430/2019] We are therefore inclined to uphold the argument that since the Co-ordinate Bench in taking the aforesaid view has completely omitted to examine the import of Rule 4 and 5 of the Rules of 2010, especially Rule 5(viii), with regard to leave encashment and Rule 5(x) with regard to payment of gratuity, it cannot be treated as a binding precedent.
Adverting now to the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to reproduce Rule 4 and 5 of the Rules of 2010 and Sections 2(q), 2(r) and Section 4 (1) and (5) of the Act of 1972, which are relevant for deciding the controversy involved in these matters, which are being extracted hereunder:
"4. Procedure of appointment in government service.-- (1) Such regularly appointed employees in the Non-Government Aided Educational Institutions who are working against sanctioned and aided post on the date of commencement of these rules and who desire to be appointed under the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules, 2010, in accordance with the terms and conditions mentioned in these rules, shall submit within 15 days from the date of publication of these rules in the official gazette an application in Form-I, to the Secretary of the concerned institution mentioning therein his/her service particulars with an advance copy to the concerned appointing authority.
(2) The Secretary of the institution shall, after verifying the service particulars, forward the applications to the concerned appointing authority along with complete service record of the employee within 10 days from the last date of receipt of applications. The Secretary of the institution shall append a certificate to the effect that the service particulars mentioned by the employees are correct.
(3) The suitability of employees of various Non-
Government Aided Educational Institutions for appointment on the various posts under these rules shall be adjudged by the screening committee comprising of:-
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM)
(34 of 47) [SAW-430/2019]
(a) in the case of post within the purview of the Commission --
(i) Chairman of the Commission or his Chairman nominee
(ii) Principal Secretary, Department of Member Personnel or his nominee not below the rank of Dy. Secretary
(iii) Principal Secretary of the concerned Member Department or his nominee not below the rank of Dy. Secretary
(iv) Director of the concerned Department Member Secretary
(b) in the case of post not within the purview of the Commission --
(i) Director of the concerned Department or Chairman his nominee
(ii)Concerned appointing authority Member Secretary (4) The committee after adjudging the suitability of the candidates shall forward the name(s) of the suitable candidate(s) to the concerned appointing authority for appointment.
5. Terms and condition for appointment of employees in Government Service.--The regularly appointed existing employees in the Non-Government Aided Educational Institutions who are working against sanctioned aided post on the date of commencement of these rules shall be appointed under the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service on the following terms and conditions, namely :--
(i) The employee should possess the requisite educational and professional qualification for the respective posts as per the relevant service rules applicable to the Government servant of similar cadre.
(ii) The posts on which the employees shall be appointed in the Government shall constitute a separate dying cadre for each category of employees.
(iii) The appointed employees shall be posted only in the colleges/ schools, as the case may be, in the rural areas on the equivalent posts specified in column number 2 of the Schedule.
However, in case there is no such equivalent post in the government, they shall be appointed (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM) (35 of 47) [SAW-430/2019] on other posts carrying the same pay scale of aided posts:
[Provided further that in the case of non- teaching staff, screened for appointment on non- teaching posts in College Education Section and posts for posting in rural areas are not available, such person shall be appointed on any equivalent post in rural areas in any other department governed by these rules. Such person shall be deemed to be appointed in the new department from the date of joining in the Directorate of College Education.]
(iv) The employees appointed under these rules shall not be entitled for any promotion till they attain the age of superannuation. However, they shall be allowed benefit of Assured Career Progression/Career Advancement Scheme as allowed to other employees of the State Government. The period from the date of their appointment on the sanctioned and aided posts would be counted for the purpose of grant of Assured Career Progression/Career Advancement Scheme.
(v) The posts shall be automatically abolished as and when the posts become vacant for any reason whatsoever i.e. on account of superannuation/voluntaryretirement/termination of service/death while in service/resignation of the employee etc.
(vi) The salary of all the appointed employees shall be fixed on the basis of the salary as drawn at the time of appointment as per the Sixth Pay Commission with effect from the date they join in the government under these rules. Those who are drawing salary in Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1998, Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) for Government College Teachers including Librarian and PTI Rules, 1999 and Rajasthan Civil Services Revised Pay Scales for Government Polytechnic College Teachers, Librarians and Physical Training Instructors Rules, 2001 shall be allowed benefit of Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) for Government College teachers including Librarian and PTI Rules, 2009 and Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) for Government Polytechnic College Teachers, Librarians and Physical Training Instructors Rules, 2010 respectively with effect from the date they join in the Government after appointment under these rules.(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM)
(36 of 47) [SAW-430/2019]
(vii) No arrears on any account whatsoever, (including arrears of salary, selection scale, Assured Career Progression or Career Advancement Scheme) shall be paid by the State Government for the period prior to the date of their joining in the Government after appointment under these rules.
(viii) Carry forward of the balance of Privilege Leave shall not be allowed. Employees shall be free to get payment of encashment of balance of P. L. from the respective grant-in-aid educational institutions.
[(ix) The persons who are appointed in the government service under these rules shall be governed by the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Contributory Pension) Rules, 2005 and the Provision of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996 shall not be applicable to them. Contributory Provident Fund Contribution, if not deposited by the Non-Government Aided Educational Institutions for the period prior to the date of their joining in the government after appointment under these rules, shall not be paid by the State Government.]
(x) The period of service in the aided institutions shall not be counted for payment of gratuity, The employees shall be free to obtain payment of gratuity from the respective grant in aid educational institution.
(xi) Each employee shall be required to execute an undertaking, in Form - II, that he/she voluntarily accepts all the terms and conditions of service prescribed under these rules and agrees to serve in the government educational institutions situated in the rural areas till attaining the age of superannuation in the service of Government."
2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) xxxxxxx
(b) xxxxxxx
(c) xxxxxxx
(q) "retirement" means termination of the service of an employee otherwise than on superannuation;
[(r) "superannuation", in relation to an
employee, means the attainment by the
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM)
(37 of 47) [SAW-430/2019]
employee of such age as is fixed in the contract or conditions of service as the age on the attainment of which the employee shall vacate the employment;]
4. Payment of gratuity.-(1) Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years,-
(a) on his superannuation, or
(b) on his retirement or resignation, or
(c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease:
Provided that the completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to death or disablement:
[Provided further that in the case of death of the employee, gratuity payable to him shall be paid to his nominee or, if no nomination has been made, to his heirs, and where any such nominees or heirs is a minor, the share of such minor, shall be deposited with the controlling authority who shall invest the same for the benefit of such minor in such bank or other financial institution, as may be prescribed, until such minor attains majority.] Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, disablement means such disablement as incapacitates an employee for the work which he was capable of performing before the accident or disease resulting in such disablement.
(2) xxxxxxxxx (3) xxxxxxxxx.
(4) xxxxxxxxx.
(5) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of an employee to receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with the employer."
It would be seen from the afore extracted Rule 5 that a complete scheme has been provided detailing out terms and conditions for appointment of the Teachers working in Non-
Government Aided Educational Institutions, against
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM)
(38 of 47) [SAW-430/2019]
sanctioned/aided posts on the date of commencement of the Rules of 2010. Rule 4 of the Rules of 2010 requires such employees to submit an application on Form-I within 15 days from the date of publication of the Rules in the official gazette an application in Form-I, to the Secretary of the concerned institution mentioning therein his/her service particulars, with an advance copy to the concerned appointing authority. Rule 5 of the Rules of 2010 contains the terms and conditions of such appointment. It provides that the regularly appointed existing employees in the Non-Government Aided Educational Institutions, who are working against sanctioned aided posts, on the date of commencement of the Rules of 2010, shall be appointed under the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service on the terms and conditions enumerated in clauses (i) to (ix), which inter-alia provided that (i) the employee should possess the requisite educational and professional qualification for the respective posts as per the relevant service rules applicable to the Government servant of similar cadre; (ii) the posts on which the employees shall be appointed in the Government shall constitute a separate dying cadre for each category of employees; (iii) the appointed employees shall be posted only in the colleges/ schools, as the case may be, in the rural areas only; (iv) the employees so appointed shall not be entitled for any promotion till they attain the age of superannuation. However, they shall be allowed benefit of Assured Career Progression/Career Advancement Scheme at par with their counter parts in the Government and for this purpose, the period of service rendered by them with the Non- Government Aided Educational Institution on sanctioned aided (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM) (39 of 47) [SAW-430/2019] posts would be counted; (v) the posts on which they are appointed shall stand abolished upon their superannuation/voluntary retirement/termination /death /resignation; (vi) their salary shall be fixed as drawn at the time of appointment. Clause (vii) in particular provided that no arrears on any account whatsoever, which may include the arrears of salary, selection scale, Assured Career Progression or Career Advancement Scheme, shall be paid by the State Government for the period prior to the date of their appointment with the Government. We are however in the present case mainly concerned with Clauses (viii), (x) and (xi). Clause (viii) which inter alia provides that "Carry forward of the balance of Privilege Leave shall not be allowed. Employees shall be free to get payment of encashment of balance of P. L. from the respective grant-in-aid educational institutions". Clause (x) provides that "The period of service in the aided institutions shall not be counted for payment of gratuity, and the employees shall be free to obtain payment of gratuity from the respective grant in aid educational institution". Most significantly, clause (xi) provides that "Each employee shall be required to execute an undertaking in Form-II, that he/she voluntarily accepts all the terms and conditions of service prescribed under these rules and agrees to serve in the government educational institutions situated in the rural areas till he/she attains the age of superannuation in the service of Government."
The intention of the rule making authority in so providing is thus clear that as far as encashment of privilege (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM) (40 of 47) [SAW-430/2019] leaves and payment of gratuity are concerned, services rendered by an employee with the grant in aid educational institution have been delinked from the services with the Government and the employee concerned would be entitled to obtain such amount of leave encashment and gratuity directly from the respective grant in aid educational institution when his employment with it comes to an end. We have to therefore place purposive as also contextual interpretation on the language of Section 4 of the Act of 1972 and Rules 7 and 8 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972. Evidently, Rule 5, supra, provides a conditional scheme for appointment of the employees of Non-Government Aided Educational Institutions upon furnishing a specific undertaking (on Form-II) by submitting an application (on Form- I), within 15 days of the date of publication of the Rules of 2010 in the gazette. The Government has thus accepted them in their employment on all the aforementioned conditions including the condition that the period which they spent with the Non- Government Aided Educational Institutions shall not be counted for the purpose of gratuity, with the service which they would render with the Government and that they shall be free to obtain payment of gratuity for that service from the respective Non- Government Aided Educational Institutions.
We reject the argument of the appellant-Management that if services rendered by employees with them would make such employees entitled to much more amount of gratuity then the permissible statutory limit. Answer to this would be found in Section 4(5) of the Act of 1972 which inter alia provides that (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM) (41 of 47) [SAW-430/2019] "Nothing in this section shall affect the right of an employee to receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with the employer." Appointment of the respondent- employees with the government under the statutory scheme, it goes without saying, has been made with the consent of the Management of the appellant. As per Rule 4 of the Rules of 2010, application of the employee for appointment with the Government is required to be submitted within 15 days of the publication of the Rules on the performa on first part of Form-I appended to the said Rules to the Secretary of the concerned institution. The Secretary of the institution is then required to verify the service particulars of the employee on second part of the same Form-I and forward such application along with a certificate about their correctness to the appointing authority of the Government.
The Supreme Court in a recently delivered judgment dated 15.03.2019 in Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Vs. Gursewak Singh and Others - Civil Appeal No.3150/2019, dealing with a case where the respondent was engaged as Gramin Dak Sewak, i.e., an Extra-Departmental Agent, to work on a part-time basis in the Postal Department, resigned from the said part-time job in 2014. He then approached the Controlling Authority-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central, seeking gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The stand of the Department was that he was not entitled to ex- gratia gratuity under the Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011 as he had voluntarily resigned from the job. The Rules of 2011 have separate provision for payment of (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM) (42 of 47) [SAW-430/2019] Gratuity to the Extra-Departmental Agent, and therefore he is not an employee under the Act of 1972. The Controlling Authority- cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner allowed his claim. The department filed an appeal under Section 7(7) of the Act of 1972 before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal. The writ petition filed by the Department against the aforesaid orders before the High Court, was also dismissed by the Single Bench and the appeal, preferred thereagainst, was also dismissed by the Division Bench. The Supreme Court, against the backdrop of these facts held that while Rule 6(13) of the same Rules provides that no gratuity is payable if an Extra-Departmental Agent quits the agency by way of resignation on his own, except on medical ground, and since the respondent tendered resignation in 2014 and appellant accepted his resignation on 28.04.2014 and passed an order under Rule 6(13) permitting him to quit the service, as a consequence, he became disentitled to payment of gratuity under the Statutory Rules, 2011. The Supreme Court considered the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 1972 which states that "Gratuity shall be payable to an employee" and further considered the provisions of Section 2(e) of the Act of 1972, which specifically excludes persons who are governed by any Act, or Rules providing for payment of Gratuity.
In so far as therefore the present case is concerned, the payment of gratuity to the appellants for the period subsequent to the period of their appointment with the Government, would be conditioned by the prescription made in Rule 5(x), which inter alia stipulates that the period of service (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM) (43 of 47) [SAW-430/2019] which they spent in the aided institutions shall not be counted for payment of gratuity with the government service, and that the employees shall be free to obtain payment of gratuity from the respective grant in aid educational institution at the time of their appointment with the Government and not when he retires on superannuation from government service.
This issue can be approached even from another angle. Section 4 of the Act of 1972 inter alia provides that the gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years; (a) on his superannuation, or (b) on his retirement or resignation, or (c) on his death or disablement due to disability or disease. Section 4 thus postulates that gratuity shall become payable only on termination of employment after completion of five years of service and the termination could be brought about by any of the modes given in Clauses (a) to (c), namely, superannuation, retirement or resignation or death or disablement due to accident or disease. Superannuation in relation to an employee has been defined in Section 2(r) of the Act to mean the attainment by the employee of such age as is fixed in the contract or conditions of service as the age on the attainment of which the employer shall vacate the employment. However the retirement has been defined in Section 2(q) of the Act to mean "termination of the service of an employee otherwise than on superannuation". Thus apparently, though the 'termination' has not been defined in the Act of 1972 but the "retirement" has been described also as a mode of "termination" of service of an employee. The termination of service has to be therefore treated (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM) (44 of 47) [SAW-430/2019] as termination of contract of service, by whatever mode including on retirement in contradiction with superannuation. In the facts of the present case, when a complete scheme of appointment of employees working in the Non-Government Aided Educational Institutions on the conditions listed in Rule 5 of the Rules of 2010 has been envisaged, a contextual interpretation has to be placed on the word "retirement" keeping in view the scheme aforesaid.
In Paul Enterprises and Others Vs. Rajib Chatterjee and Company and Others - (2009) 3 SCC 709, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where an advertisement was issued by the State of West Bengal inviting applications for grant of excise licence for country spirit shops from unemployed youth. Appellant no.1, a partnership firm of appellants no.2 and 3, applied therefor. The respondent no.1, a partnership firm of respondents no.2 and 3, also applied for allotment of the licence for country spirit shop. While appellant no.1 was placed at serial no.3, the respondent no.1 was placed at serial no.2. The candidature of respondent no.1 was objected to by the appellants, inter alia, contending that respondents no.2 and 3 were not "unemployed youth" within the meaning of the said advertisement and two locations of the liquor shops proposed by them were not conducive therefor. The District Magistrate, being the licensing authority, directed an enquiry to be held. The enquiry officer, in his report, inter alia, opined that whereas respondent no.2 carried on seasonal business in paddy, til, potatoes, etc. the respondent no.1 carried on business with his brother. The Additional District Magistrate (Excise), however, disagreed with the said view taken by the enquiry officer. The allotment of the (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM) (45 of 47) [SAW-430/2019] country spirit shop was made in favour of the respondent no.1. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed writ petition before the High Court, which was allowed by the Single Bench and an intra court appeal preferred thereagainst by the respondent was allowed by the Division Bench. The Division Bench was satisfied that the respondents were to be considered as "unemployed youth" in terms of the advertisement. The Supreme Court, in those facts, held that in such a situation "the interpretation clause should be given a contextual meaning", and in para 24 and 32 of the report held as under:-
"24. In a situation of this nature, the interpretation clause should be given a contextual meaning. It is not exhaustive. It is trite that when a statutory enactment defines its terms, the same should govern what is proved, authorized or done under or by reference to that enactment. It is also trite that all statutory definitions have to be read subject to the qualification variously expressed in the interpretation clause, which created them."
"32. The advertisement in question keeping in view the text and context in which it was issued clearly go to show that for the purpose of applying for grant of a liquor shop, the respondents were qualified having been continuing to be registered in the Employment Exchange and having been granted a certificate in that behalf by the person specified in the advertisement. It is not a case where the word `unemployed' should be given a literal or even the dictionary meaning. In our view, it is required to be given a purposive meaning; a meaning which is capable of being translated in the action, a meaning which would not lead to an anomaly or absurdity; a meaning which satisfies the text and context in which the word has been used."
The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Reliance Industries Limited and Others - (2017) (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM) (46 of 47) [SAW-430/2019] 10 SCC 713, while dealing with this basic rule of interpretation of the statutes, held in para 27 of the report as under:-
"27. Interpretation must depend upon the text and the context. They are the basis of interpretation. One may well say if the test is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. If the statute is looked at, in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of the statute- maker, provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour and appear different than the statute is looked at without glasses provided by the context. We must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire act. No part of a statute or word of a statute can be construed in isolation."
Taking contextual interpretation of the word "retirement" as its definition given in Section 2(q) which includes "termination" of service by an employer of an employee otherwise than superannuation, the voluntary option given by the employees working on the aided sanctioned post in the Non-Government Aided Educational Institutions, obviously along with the consent of the such institution, for being appointed with the Government on the conditions given in Rule 5 of the Rules of 2010, would in that spirit mean termination of service, as far as previous employer viz. Aided Institution is concerned and would make such employees entitled to receive and such Non-Government Aided Educational Institutions liable to pay at that very stage, the gratuity subject to the condition of such employees having (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM) (47 of 47) [SAW-430/2019] rendered "continuous service for not less than five years" and subject further to two provisos to Section 4(1) of the Act of 1972.
In so far as award of interest on delayed payment of gratuity and leave encashment is concerned, since the appellants have unduly retained the aforesaid amount, which became payable to the respondents-employees soon upon their appointment with the Government, they would certainly be liable to pay interest. Direction of the learned Single in requiring the appellants to pay the interest @ 6% per annum therefore cannot be faulted.
In view of above, we do not find any merit in these appeals, which are accordingly dismissed. We direct the appellants to now pay to the respondents-employees the amount of gratuity and leave encashment, if the same have not still been paid, together with interest @ 6% per annum till it is paid, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
Stay applications and other misc. applications, if any pending, stand disposed of.
Office is directed to place a copy of this judgment on record of each connected appeal.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J Manoj/ (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:47 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)