Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Managing Committee Swami Keshwanand ... vs The Rajasthan Non-Government ... on 24 July, 2002
Equivalent citations: RLW2003(3)RAJ2022, 2002(5)WLC928, 2002(5)WLN235
JUDGMENT Sunil Kumar Garg, J.
1. All the above-mentioned three writ petitions are being decided by this common order as in all of them, common questions of law facts are involved.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 921/2001
2. This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 3.3.2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned judgment & order dated 6.12.2000 (Annex.P/3) passed by the Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur in favour of respondent No. 3 Badri Ram Chahar be quashed and set aside.
3. It arises in the following circumstances:
The petitioner is a Managing Committee of the registered Society registered under the Societies Registration Act i.e. Gramotthan Vidyapeeth, Sangaria. The society is receiving the aid from the State Government in accordance with the norms and criteria laid down in the Rules in relation to expenditure.
The Respondents No. 3 Badri Ram initially appointed as Lab Assistant on 15.9.1982. He filed ah application under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1989") before the respondent No. 1 Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (for short "the Tribunal") claiming grant of selection grades on completion of 9,18 and 27 years of service in terms of the order of the State Government dated 25.1.1992 (Annex.P/1).
After filing of the said application, the petitioner took some objections about the maintainability of the said application and one of the grounds is that vide order dated 20.3.1999 (Annex.P/2), since the State Government has not extended the benefit of selection grade to the employees of the aided institutions and that order has not been challenged by the respondent No. 3 before the Tribunal, therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass impugned order Annex. P/3 dated 6.12.2000 granting selection grade to respondent No. 3.
Apart from this, the further case of the petitioner is that under Section 21 of the Act of 1989, only the Management of the recognced institution could have made an application before the Tribunal and since in the present case, as the application was moved by the respondent No. 3, therefore, that application was not maintainable and thus, the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 6.12.2000 (Annex.P/3), which was passed on that application of the respondent No. 3, has become without jurisdiction and it should be set aside, Hence, this writ petition with the prayer as staled above.
A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondent No. 2 as well as by the respondent No. 3 and they have prayed through their reply that this writ petition be dismissed, as the present case is squarely covered by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in S.R. Higher Secondary School and Ors. v. Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur and Ors. (1).
4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record.
5. From perusing the impugned order dated 6.12.2000 (Annex.P/3) passed by the Tribunal in favour of the respondent No. 3, the following facts have come in picture:-
(1) That the impugned order of the Tribunal is based on the decision of this Court in Sanatan Dharm Senior Higher Secondary School v. Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal (1), where it has been held by this Court that employees of the aided institutions are also entitled to the benefit of selection grades.
(2) That the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal on the application made by the respondent No. 3.
6. The full Bench of this Court in the case of S.R. Higher Secondary School (supra) came to the following conclusions:-
(1) That the teachers of Non-Government Educational Institutions, who are receiving grant-in-aid under the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 read with the Rules framed thereunder, namely the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-aid and Service Conditions etc.) Rules, 1993 are entitled to selection scale as given to the employees/teachers serving in Government Educational Institutions by virtue of the circular/order dated 25.1.1992.
(2) That teachers of Non-Government Educational Institutions receiving aid are entitled for leave encashment benefits after retirement under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
7. Thus, in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of S.R. Higher Secondary School (surpa), the employees/teachers of the Non-Government Educational Institutions, who are receiving grant-in-aid are entitled to selection scale as given to employees/teachers serving in the government Educational Institutions.
8. In the background of the said Full Bench decision of this Court, the point of jurisdiction as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the point that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order Annex.P/3 dated 6.12.2000 has to be decided.
9. For convenience, Section 21 of the Act of 1989 is quoted here:-
Section 21. Application to the Tribunal.-(1) Where there is any dispute between the management of a recognised institution and any of its employee with respect to the conditions of service, the management of the employee may make an application in the prescribed manner to the Tribunal and the decision of the Tribunal thereon shall be final.
(2) Any dispute of the nature referred to in Sub-section (1) and any appeal of the nature referred to in Section 19, pending before the State Government or any officer of the State Government immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall, as soon as may be after such commencement; by transferred to the Tribunal for its decision."
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the application under Section 21 of the Act of 1989 can only be moved by the Management and non by the employee and since in the present case, the application was moved by the Employee (respondent No. 3), therefore, the said application was not maintainable and the impugned order Annex.P/3 passed on that application by the Tribunal has become without jurisdiction.
11. In my considered opinion, this argument carries no weight because of the simple reason that since the Full Bench of this Court in the case of S.R. Higher Secondary School (supra) has decided the matter that the employees/teachers of the Non- Government Educational Institutions, who are receiving grant-in- aid are also entitled to the benefit of selection grade in the same manner as is given to the employees/teachers of the Government Educational Institutions by virtue of circular/order dated 25.1.1992 issued by the Stale Government, therefore, to say that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass such order, is to make the Full Bench decision of this Court a piece of show or illusory or redundant. When the Full Bench of this-Court in the case of S.R. Higher Secondary School (supra) has clearly held that the employees/teachers of the Non-Government Educational Institutions, who are receiving grant-in-aid are also entitled to the benefit of selection grade, therefore, in these circumstances, if the application has been moved by the respondent No. 3 before the Tribunal under Section 21 of the Act of 1989 and the same has been entertained and decided by the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide that application.
12. No doubt in Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act of 1989, the Management of the employee is authorised to make application before the Tribunal, but if one party has been given a right to move an application, the other party has an implied right to seek remedy under the same provision and because of this reason, if employee of the aided Institution has moved an application under Section 21 of the Act of 1989 before the Tribunal, the said application, any order is passed by the Tribunal, that order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.
13. Thus, it is held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application of the employee of the aided institution filed Under Section 21 of the Act of 1989.
14. Since the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 6.12.2000 (Annex.P/3) is based on the judgment of this Court, therefore, the same is perfect in law and cannot be questioned. Furthermore, the Full Bench of this Court in S.R. Higher Secondary School (supra) has held that the employees/teachers of Non-Government Educational Institutions are also entitled to selection grade etc. and therefore, in these circumstances, if the Tribunal vide impugned order Annex.P/3 dated 6.12.2000 ordered grant of selection grade to the respondent No. 3, employee of aided Institution, no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal in doing so.
15. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
16. These two writ petition petitions also raise the same controversy as involved in the above S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 921/2001 and for the reasons given in above S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 921/2001, these two writ petitions also have no merit and they are also liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, all the abovementioned three writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.