Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Yogesh Kumar Sharma vs R N G E I T Jaipur And Ors on 13 August, 2025
Author: Anand Sharma
Bench: Anand Sharma
[2025:RJ-JP:30362]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2071/2003
Yogesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Kameshwar Dayal Sharma, aged
about 35 years, R/o Vasangate, Bharatpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal,
Mini Secretariat, Jaipur, through its Presiding Officer.
2. Adarsh Vidya Mandir Samiti, Purana Bayana Bus Stand,
Bharatpur, through its secretary.
3. Uchh Prathmik Adarsh Vidya Mandir, Ranjeet Nagar, Bharatpur,
through its Secretary.
4. Director of Primary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
5. State of Rajasthan through Secretary to the Government
Department of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.P. Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, AGC with
Mr. C.P. Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Judgment
Date of Reserve : 06.08.2025
Date of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025
1. Core question involved in the instant writ petition is as to whether employees of Non-Government unaided recognized institutions are entitled for the same pay scale, which is being paid to the employees of Government Educational Institutions or not?
2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Non-
Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (in short the 'Act of 1989') contending therein that he was appointed as Teacher Grade-III in Government Upper Primary Adarsh Vidya Mandir, Ranjeet Nagar, Bharatpur on 07.07.1993. It was mentioned that (Downloaded on 18/08/2025 at 10:02:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30362] (2 of 25) [CW-2071/2003] the pay and allowances which was being given to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the aforesaid Non-Government Recognized Institutions were much less than the pay and allowances admissible to the employees of State Government.
Representations and demand was raised for granting equal pay to the employees of the institution qua the pay of employees of Government institutions. However, when their grievance was not addressed by the institution, he filed an application before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal (The Tribunal), Jaipur with a prayer to grant the same pay and allowances to the petitioner as being paid to the employees of State Government.
3. Reply to the application was filed on behalf of respondent-institution in which it was mentioned that although, the respondent-institution is recognized by the State Government under the provisions of the Act of 1989, yet grant-in-aid was neither sanctioned nor released to the respondent-institution.
Hence, under these circumstances, in the light of provisions of Sections 16 and 29 of the Act of 1989 as well as Rule 34 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions, (Recognition, Grant-in-aid & service conditions etc.), 1993 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Rules of 1993'), the respondent-institution was not under any obligation to grant the same pay and allowances to the staff of institution which has been prescribed by the Government for the staff of similar category in Government Educational Institutions.
(Downloaded on 18/08/2025 at 10:02:16 PM)[2025:RJ-JP:30362] (3 of 25) [CW-2071/2003]
4. After hearing both the parties, learned Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 12.09.2002.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 12.09.2002, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As per petitioner, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is totally against the facts of the case, material on record and provisions of the Act of 1989 as well as Rules of 1993.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly, respondent-institution is a recognized institution under Section 3 of the Act of 1989, therefore, once recognition has been granted under the Act, then the respondent-institution is under an obligation to follow all the provisions of the Act of 1989 as well as Rules of 1993. It has been emphasized by learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 5 of the Rules of 1993 lays down procedure for recognition and for that purpose, the institution is required to submit application for recognition in the prescribed form given in Appendix-I appended to the Rules and is bound to follow all the terms and conditions of recognition as mentioned in Appendix-II.
It has also been indicated that the statutory provisions also deal with pay and allowances to the employees of the Non-Government Educational Institution and it is a condition for granting recognition that the employees working in the institution shall be granted pay, dearness allowance and PF in accordance with Rules of State Government.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the respondent-institution has taken recognition from the State (Downloaded on 18/08/2025 at 10:02:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30362] (4 of 25) [CW-2071/2003] Government subject to aforesaid condition mentioned in Entry-14 of the Appendix-II, then it was under obligation to give some benefits to its employees as mentioned in the said Entry-14 of the Appendix-II.
8. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Yashpal Sharma Vs. Managing Committee Hayaya 2003 (1) WLN 689, the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Krishnamcharyulu and Ors. Vs. Shri Venkateswara Hindi College of Engineering and Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 1774/1997) decided on 21.02.1997, Shanti Niketan Hindi Primary School Vs. Pal Hariram Ramavtar and Ors. AIR 2010 SC 656 and the judgment of TMA Pai Foundation and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka 2002(8) SCC
481.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent-institution has opposed the writ petition and has submitted that learned Tribunal has committed no mistake whatsoever in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 12.09.2002.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the prayer made by the petitioner is apparently against the unambiguous and explicit provisions of Section 16 and 29 of the Act of 1989 and Rule 34 of the Rules of 1993. As per aforesaid provisions, only the employees of aided institution are entitled for pay and allowances equal to the employees of Government Educational Institutions and admittedly, the respondent-institution was not an aided institution and was simply a recognized institution. He submits that Entry-14 of Appendix-II has been (Downloaded on 18/08/2025 at 10:02:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30362] (5 of 25) [CW-2071/2003] clarified by the State Government by way of issuing one Order No. 60 circulated on 29.07.1998, which has been issued pursuant to Rule 93 of the Rules of 1993, in which it has been clarified that granting pay and allowances equal to the employees of Government Educational Institution is not mandatory in the case of unaided institutions. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Kamla Bai & Ors.
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13781/2012) decided on 14.09.2012, Managing Committee, Tegor Bal Niketan Samiti & Ors. Vs. Shri P.K. Sharma & Ors.
decided by Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 160/2006 dated 21.09.2023, another Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Adarsh Vidya Mandir Samiti, Bharatpur & Anr. Vs. Raju Lal & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 665/2004) decided on 08.08.2013 and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushmita Basu & Ors. Vs. Ballygunge Siksha Samity & Ors. reported in 2006 (7) SCC 680 and in the case of Satimbla Sharma & Ors.
Vs. St. Paul Sr. Secondary School reported in 2011(13) SCC 760 and has prayed for dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
11. I have considered the rival submissions made at Bar and examined the record.
12. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to refer to following provisions of Rajasthan Non-Government Education Institution Act, 1989 :-
"2 Definition- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-(Downloaded on 18/08/2025 at 10:02:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30362] (6 of 25) [CW-2071/2003]
(b) "aided institution" means a recognized institution which is receiving aid in the form of maintenance grant from the State Government;
(q) "Recognised Institution" means a non-
Government Educational Institution affiliated to any University or recognized by the Board, Director of Education or any office authorised by the State Government or the Director of Education in this behalf;
3. "Recognition of Institutions- (1). Except in the case of institution affiliated to a University or to be recognized by the Board, the Competent Authority may, on a application made to it in the prescribed form and manner, recognize a non-Government Educational Institution on fulfilment of such terms and conditions as may be prescribed:
Provided that no institution shall be recognized unless it has been registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958, (Act No. 28 of 1958) or it is being run by a public trust registered under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (Act No. 42 of 1959) or by trust created in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (Central Act No. 2 of 1882) (2). Every application for recognition of an institution shall be entertained and considered by the Competent Authority and the decision thereon shall be communicated to the applicant within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the application and, where recognition is refused, the reasons therefore shall also be communicated to the applicant within the said period.
7. "Grant of aid to recognized institutions.- (1) No aid shall be claimed by an institution as a matter of right and an aid granted under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder may be stopped by the State Government at any time.
(2) Unrecognised institutions shall not be eligible to receive any aid.
(3) Subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed, the sanctioning authority may sanction and distribute aid to recognised institutions from time to time in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed.
(4) The aid may cover such part of the expenditure of the institution as may be prescribed.
(5) No amount out of aid given for salary of the employees of an institution shall be used for any other purpose.
(6) The sanctioning authority may stop, reduce or suspend aid on breach of any of the terms and conditions prescribed in this behalf.
(7) The amount of aid may normally be paid to the secretary of the managing committee of an institution but, in special circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, such amount may be paid to any (Downloaded on 18/08/2025 at 10:02:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30362] (7 of 25) [CW-2071/2003] person authorised by the Director of Education or by any other officer empowered by him in this behalf.
Section 16.(1) The State Government may regulate the recruitment and conditions of service, including conditions relating to qualifications, pay, gratuity, insurance, age of retirement, entitlement of leave, conduct and discipline, of persons appointed as employees of aided institutions in the State :
Provided that the rights and benefits accruing to an employee of an existing institution under the grant-in- aid rules in force at the commencement of this Act shall not be varied to the disadvantage of such employee:
Provided further that every such employee shall be entitled to opt for such terms and conditions of service as were applicable to him immediately before the commencement of this Act:
Provided also that, irrespective of the age of retirement prescribed, action may be taken for compulsory retirement of such an employee after completion of 25 years of service or on attainment of the age of 50 years whichever is earlier, in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed.
(2) Every recognised institution shall constitute a provident fund for the benefit of its employees in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed and contribute to such fund and pay interest on the deposited amount at such rate as may be prescribed from time to time.
29. Pay and allowances of employees.- (1) The scales of pay and allowances except compensatory allowances with respect to all the employees of an aided institution shall not be less than those prescribed for the staff belonging to similar categories in Government institutions.
(2) Notwithstanding any contract to the contrary, the salary of an employee of a recognised institution, for any period after the commencement of this Act, shall be paid to him by the management before the expiry of the fifteenth day or such earlier day, as the State Government may, by general or special order appoint, of the month next following the month in respect of which or part of which it is payable:
Provided that if at any time the State Government deems it fit, it may prescribe a different procedure for payment of salary and allowances.
(3) The salary shall be paid without deductions of any kind except those authorised by the rules made under this Act or by any other law for the time being in force."(Downloaded on 18/08/2025 at 10:02:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30362] (8 of 25) [CW-2071/2003]
13. Following provisions of Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Rules, 1993 are relevant:-
"2. Definitions.- In these rules unless the context otherwise requires,-
(l) "Grant-in-Aid" means any aid granted to a recognised Non-
Government Educational Institution by the State Government;
9. Grants,- The State Government may at its discretion sanction following grants :-
(1) Maintenance or recurring grant.
(2) Non-recurring grant towards equipments, building etc. (3) Ad hoc, non-recurring or recurring grant to an institution which is of an all India Character and its project and activities have been approved by the Central or State Government on such terms and conditions as it may deem fit to impose.
(4) Such other grants as may be sanctioned by the Govt. from time to time.
34. Pay and allowances.- The scales of pay and allowances of the staff of the aided educational institutions shall not be less than those prescribed by the Government for the staff of similar category in the Government educational institutions.
Explanation - "Allowances" mean and include Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance.
Appendix-II **14 osru HkRrs ¼d½ ek/;fed@ laLFkk esa dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa dks ljdkj ds lhfu;j mPp fu;eksa ds vuqlkj osru] egaxkbZ HkRrk ,oa ek/;fed fo| ky; Hkfo"; fuf/k lqfo/kk,a miyC/k djk;h tk;saA ¼[k½ egkfo|ky; egkfo|ky; ds 'kS{kf.kd vf/kdkfj;ksa dks jkT; ljdkj }kjk le;≤ ij fu/kkZfjr osrueku] HkRrs ,oa vU; lqfo/kk,a nsuk vko';d gSA ¼laLFkk dks vukifRr izek.k&i= nsus ls igys bl fo"k; esa opu ca/k nsuk vko';d gksxkA½**
14. Bare perusal of the definition of 'aided institution' and 'recognized institution' would make it clear that every aided institution is bound to be a recognized institution but not vice-
versa.
15. The Legislature while enacting the Act of 1989 has purposely given two different provisions for the 'recognized institution' and 'aided institution'.
16. The aforesaid provisions would also make it clear that the aided institutions receive grant-in-aid for their recurring and non-recurring expenses from the State Government. Since the (Downloaded on 18/08/2025 at 10:02:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30362] (9 of 25) [CW-2071/2003] State Government is contributing substantially in monetary terms in the affairs of aided institutions, therefore, while enacting the Act of 1989, quite intentionally effective provisions have been made to control and regulate the terms and conditions of employment of the employees of only 'aided institution' in respect of pay and allowances.
17. Since, no such aid or contribution granted by the State-
Government to other unaided recognized institution, therefore, rightly the State Legislature has refrained itself from making any provisions to regulate pay and allowances of unaided institutions under the Act of 1989 and the Rules of 1993.
18. Provisions of Section 16 of the Act of 1989 would reveal that it has got two sub-sections. In Sub-Section (1), the provisions has been made empowering the State Government to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service including pay and allowances of the persons appointed as employees of aided institution. Whereas, Sub-Section (2) relates to recognized institutions (may not be aided) and provides that every recognized institutions shall constitute a provident fund for the benefits of its employees. Thus, it is clear that the Legislature explicitly intended to carve out two different provisions in the aforesaid two different circumstances for regulating the monetary interest of the employees of the aided institution and those working in unaided recognized institutions.
19. Section 29 of the Act is couched with quite unambiguous words and makes it abundantly clear that the scales of pay and allowances with respect to all the employees of an aided institution shall not be less than those prescribed for the (Downloaded on 18/08/2025 at 10:02:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30362] (10 of 25) [CW-2071/2003] staff belonging to similar categories in Government-institution.
Thus, the Legislature has intentionally and rightly so made a provision only in order to provide similar benefits to the employees of 'aided institution' equal to the staff belonging to similar categories in Government-institutions, for the obvious reason that the Government contributes in monetary terms for meeting out recurring as well as non-recurring expenses of such aided institutions. Types of grants which are sanctioned and released by the State Government has been given in Rule 9 of the Rules of 1993 and bare perusal of which would reveal that since the Government is taking care of almost all kind of expenses of aided institution, therefore, it is well within its right to regulate the service conditions of the employees working in aided institution including their pay and allowances.
20. The petitioner cannot raise any grievance either of alleged discrimination between the employees of aided institutions and unaided recognized institutions, nor can he raise a plea of equal pay for equal work under the aforesaid circumstances.
21. The petitioner has emphasized that any institution which has taken recognition under the Act of 1989 and Rules of 1993 under some conditions including the conditions mentioned in Entry-14 of Appendix-II, then such institution has got legal obligation to follow such condition and therefore, it was mandatory for the respondent-institution to pay similar pay and allowances to the petitioner, which are payable to the respective category of employees and Government institution. Bare reading of aforesaid Entry-14 would reveal that it nowhere mandates that even the unaided recognized institutions are under legal obligation to grant (Downloaded on 18/08/2025 at 10:02:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30362] (11 of 25) [CW-2071/2003] similar pay and allowances to its employees equal to the employees of Government-institutions. Even otherwise, when the provisions of Section 16 and 29 of the Act are quite clear that such protection is only applicable in the cases of employees of aided institution, then the entry given in an Appendix to the Rules cannot prevail over the provisions of the Act. It is settled proposition that the Appendix, which is part of the Rules cannot override the provisions of parent statute.
22. It appears that as the aforesaid Entry-14 was not happily worded and created some confusion, therefore, under these circumstances in exercise of Rule 93 of the Rules of 1993, the State Government has issued an order for removal of dues dated 29.07.1998, which has clarified that it is not mandatory for unaided recognized institutions to make payment of pay and allowances to its employees equal to the pay and allowances admissible to the employees of Government-institutions.
23. Circular/order dated 29.07.1998 is being reproduced hereunder:
**ifji= dzekad i&15¼1½ f'k{kk&5@94 ikVZ 1 fnukad 29-07-1998 ¼vkns'k la[;k 60½ fo"k;%& ekU;rk izkIr xSj ljdkjh vuqnkfur f'k{k.k laLFkkvksa esa 1- deZpkfj;ksa dks ns; osru] HkRrs bR;kfn] 2- Qhl ysus ds laca/k esa oLrqfLFkfrA mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr jkT; ljdkj ds /;ku esa yk;k x;k gS fd xSj ljdkjh] xSj vuqnkfur f'k{k.k laLFkkvksa }kjk ekU;rk ds fy, vkosnu i= dh tkap djrs le; f'k{kk foHkkx ds v/khuLFk dk;kZy; }kjk jktLFkku xSj ljdkjh 'kSf{kd laLFkk vf/kfu;e] 1989 ,oa rRlaca/kh fu;e] 1993 ds fu;e&4 dh lfifBr ifjf'k"B&2 ds vkbZVe la[;k 7 o 14 ds dze esa& laLFkkvksa }kjk vius f'k{kdksa o deZpkfj;ksa dks fn;s tkus okys osru HkrhZ rFkk ,slh laLFkkvksa }kjk yh tk jgh Qhl ds laca/k esa HkzkfUr gS ,oa bl HkzkfUro'k buds ekU;rk izdj.k xyr dkj.kksa ls vLohdkj dj fn, tkrs gSAa bl laca/k esa oLrqfLFkfr fuEukuqlkj Li"V dh tkrh gS%& xSj ljdkjh] xSj vuqnkfur laLFkkvksa esa f'k{kdksa rFkk deZpkfj;ksa dks ns; osru HkRrs bR;kfn ls lacaf/kr fo"k;%& bl laca/k esa ifjf'k"B&2 ds vkbZVe la[;k 14 esa fuEu O;oLFkk gS%& 14- osru HkRrs%& ¼d½ izkFkfed@mPp izkFkfed@ek/;fed@lhfu;j mPp ek/;fed fo|yk;& laLFkk esa dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa dks ljdkj ds fu;eksa ds vuqlkj osru] egaxkbZ HkRrk ,oa Hkfo"; fuf/k lqfo/kk;sa miyC/k djokbZ tk,A (Downloaded on 18/08/2025 at 10:02:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30362] (12 of 25) [CW-2071/2003] ¼[k½ egkfo|ky;%& egkfo|ky; 'kS{kf.kd vf/kdkjh dks jkT; ljdkj }kjk le;≤ ij fu/kkZfjr osrueku] HkRrs ,oa vU; lqfo/kk,a nsuk vko';d gSA ¼laLFkk dks vukifRRk izek.k i=½ nsus ls igys bl fo"k; ds opu ca/k nsuk vko';d gksxkA uksV%& deZpkfj;ksa ds [kkrs esa tek ;ksX; pSd ls eghus dh lekfIr ds i'pkr~ vxys ekg dh 5 rkjh[k ls iwoZ lank; djuk vko';d gksxkA mijksDr izko/kku dks vuqnku izkIr xSj ljdkjh laLFkkvksa ds fy, fu;e 34 ls foHksn fd;k tkuk vko';d gSA fu;e 34 fu;ekuqlkj gS%& 34- osru vkSj HkRrs%& lgk;rk izkIr 'kSf{kd laLFkkvksa ds deZpkfj;ksa ds osrueku vkSj HkRrs] ljdkjh 'kSf{kd laLFkkvksa esa oSls gh izoxZ ds deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, ljdkj }kjk fofgr osrueku vkSj HkRrksa ls de ugha gksaxsA Li"Vhdj.k%& **HkRrs** ls vfHkizsr gS vkSj blesa lfEefyr gS] egaxkbZ HkRrk] x`g fdjk;k HkRrk vkSj 'kgjh {kfriwfrZ HkRrkA mijksDr izkIr nksuksa izko/kkuksa dks ,d lkFk djus ls Li"V gksxk dh vuqnku izkIr xSj ljdkjh laLFkkvksa ds deZpkfj;ksa o f'k{kdksa ds fy, osrueku] egaxkbZ HkRrk] x`g fdjk;k HkRrk ,oa 'kgjh {kfriwfrZ HkRrk ds fy, ;g oS/kkfud :i ls izkof/kr dj fn;k x;k gS fd ,sls deZpkfj;ksa ds osrueku o HkRrs ljdkjh 'kSf{kd laLFkkvksa ds oSls gh izoxZ ds deZpkfj;ksa ds osrueku o HkRrksa ls de ugha gksaxs] ysfdu xSj ljdkjh] xSj vuqnkfur laLFkkvksa ds fy, ;g 'krZ ugha j[kh xbZ gS fd xSj ljdkjh] xSj vuqnkfur laLFkkvksa ds fy, ekU;rk dh 'krksZa ds :i esa ;gha O;oLFkk dh xbZ gS] fd muds fy, ljdkj ds fu;eksa ds vuqlkj osru] egaxkbZ HkRrk ,oa Hkfo"; fuf/k lqfo/kk miyC/k djkbZ tk;sxhA jkT; ljdkj us vHkh rd bl laca/k esa dksbZ fu;e ugha cuk, gSA vr% ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd xSj ljdkjh] xSj vuqnkfur f'k{k.k laLFkkvksa ds f'k{kdksa o deZpkfj;ksa dks jktdh; f'k{kdksa o deZpkfj;ksa ds leku osru] egaxkbZ HkRrk o Hkfo"; fuf/k lqfo/kk,a fn;k tkuk vfuok;Z ugha gS] ,slh laLFkk o muds f'k{kd rFkk deZpkjh jkT; ljdkj }kjk fu;e cuk, tkus rd osru] egaxkbZ HkRrs bR;kfn ds laca/k esa vkilh vuqca/k ds vk/kkj ij vius osru rFkk HkRrs r; djus ds fy, Lora= gSaA mijksDr fLFkfr ds e/; utj j[krs gq, vkidks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd bl vk/kkj ij xSj ljdkjh] xSj vuqnkfur laLFkkvksa dks ekU;rk fn;s tkus ls badkj ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg,A**
24. In the case of Adarsh Vidya Mandir Samiti (supra) Division Bench of this Court has already examined the provisions of the Act of 1989, Rule 34 as well as Entry-14 of Appendix-II and Circular/Order dated 29.07.1998.
25. After considering the aforesaid provisions and documents, following observation has been given by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Adarsh Vidya Mandir Samiti, Bharatpur & Anr. Vs. Raju Lal & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 665/2004):-
"17. The Circular dated 29.07.1998 issued by the State Government is self explanatory and needs no further clarification that the scale of pay and allowances as admissible to the employees of the Government institution are applicable to the employees of the aided institutions alone and no parity of scale of pay can be claimed by the employees of unaided institution under the scheme of the Act of 1989 and Rules 1993. It is true (Downloaded on 18/08/2025 at 10:02:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30362] (13 of 25) [CW-2071/2003] that learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 3893/1995 decided on 29.05.1997 held that even the untrained teacher of unaided institution is entitled for scale of pay and allowances similar to the employees of the Government institution and the Division Bench has dismissed the appeal preferred by the management but it appears from the perusal of the order of Division Bench that the scheme of the Act 1989 and Rule 1993 framed thereunder a not brought to their notice as reflected from the order dated 24.02.2002 passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 302/2002.
20.The Apex Court in its judgment reported in Sushmita Basu referred to supra observed that the private schools cannot be compelled to pay salary to the teachers equal to the government school teachers for want of any rules and after the Scheme of Act 1989 and Rules 1993 framed thereunder as have been examined in its terms we do not find that there is any provision which mandates the scale of pay & allowances of recognized unaided institution has to be in parity to the employees of govt. institution and it will be appropriate to quote extract of judgment ad infra:
3. It was mainly complaining about the refusal of the management to implement the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.1988 retrospectively, that the teachers went to court. We asked learned Senior Counsel for the appellants as to whether there was any Act, statutory rule or even Government Order directing private unaided educational institutions to implement the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission especially in the context of the fact that the salaries and emoluments of teachers of private unaided institutions was not a subject matter of reference to the Third Pay Commission. Learned Counsel fairly submitted that there was no statutory provision, Rule or binding Order, but referred to the decision of this Court in Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association v. Union of India, (1986) 4 SCC 707 :
(1987) 1 SCR 238 and submitted that the principle recognized therein should be applied to teachers like the appellants as well. Learned Counsel conceded that there was no provision corresponding to Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 in the Bengal Act.
But the submission was that the appellants were approved teachers and they were also doing the same work as teachers of government schools and aided schools and in the circumstances 'equal pay for equal work' principle could be directed to be implemented and in that context the appellants could be granted relief. This was met by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents by pointing out that the institution had not only implemented the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission but has also implemented the recommendations of the Fourth and Fifth Pay (Downloaded on 18/08/2025 at 10:02:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30362] (14 of 25) [CW-2071/2003] Commissions, though it was not bound to do so and there could be no grievance that teachers are being paid salaries that are not comparable with that of the teachers of government schools and aided schools. With reference to the pleadings, it was pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that the teachers of the first respondent-Institution, in fact, were enjoying some additional benefits which are not available to teachers of government institutions and aided institutions. It was also pointed out that out of the very many teachers in the school, only three of them, the appellants before us, have refused to enter into an agreement with the First Respondent and as observed by this Court in Reserve Bank of India v. C.N. Sahasranaman, (1986) II LLJ 316 SC, the fact that a few are not satisfied, is no ground for interference by court or for grant of relief in their favour when by and large the position adopted by the institution is found to be fair and just and is accepted by all other teachers. We find considerable merit in the submissions on behalf of the respondents. In the absence of a statutory provision, we are not in a position to agree with learned Counsel for the appellants that interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is warranted in this case. We find on the whole that there has been just treatment of the teachers by the first respondent. Institution and there is no reason to interfere even on the ground that the appellants are being treated unfairly by their employer, the educational institution, or on the basis that this is a case in which the conscience of the court is shocked, compelling it to enter the arena to afford relief to the teachers.
4. In this context, we must also notice that the Writ Petition in the High Court is filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing a private educational institution to implement the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission including their implementation with retrospective effect. Even the decision relied on by learned Counsel for the appellants, namely, K. Krishnamacharyulu v. Shri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering, (1997) 3 SCC 571 : (1997) 2 SCR 368 shows that interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus by the court against a private educational institution like the first respondent herein, would be justified only if a public law element is involved and if it is only a private law remedy no Writ Petition would lie. We think that even going by the ratio of that decision, a writ of mandamus could not have been issued to the first respondent in this case.
5. We must remember that the profession of teaching is a noble profession. It is not an employment in the sense of it being merely an earner of bread and butter. A teacher fulfils a great role in the life of the nation. He is the 'guru'. It is the teacher, who moulds its future (Downloaded on 18/08/2025 at 10:02:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30362] (15 of 25) [CW-2071/2003] citizens by imparting to his students not only knowledge, but also a sense of duty, righteousness and dedication to the welfare of the nation, in addition to other qualities of head and heart. If teachers clamour for more salaries and perquisites, the normal consequence in the case of private educational institutions, if the demand is conceded, would be to pass on the burden to the students by increasing the fees payable by the students. Teachers must ask themselves whether they should be the cause for putting education beyond the ken of children of parents of average families with average income. A teacher's profession calls for a little sacrifice in the interests of the nation. The main asset of a teacher is his students former and present. Teachers who have lived up to ideals are held in great esteem by their disciples. The position of the Guru, the teacher, in our ethos is equal to that of God (Matha Pitha Guru Daivam). The teachers of today must ensure that this great Indian concept and the reverential position they hold, is not sacrificed at the altar of avarice"
21. However, Hon'ble Apex Court in its latter judgment reported in 2011 (4) SCT 1 Satimbla Sharma v. St. Paul Sr. Secondary School taking note of Sushmita Basu observed that no mandamus can be issued to the respondents regarding scale of pay & allowances on the ground that the conditions of affiliation/recognition of schools has not been carried out and observed ad infra:
13. We cannot also issue a mandamus to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that the conditions of provisional affiliation of schools prescribed by the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations stipulate in Clause (5)(b) that the salary and allowances and other benefits of the staff of the affiliated school must be comparable to that prescribed by the State Department of Education because such conditions for provisional affiliation are not statutory provisions or executive instructions, which are enforceable in law. Similarly, we cannot issue a mandamus to give effect to the recommendations of the report of Education Commission 1964-66 that the scales of pay of school teachers belonging to the same category but working under different managements such as government, local bodies or private managements should be the same, unless the recommendations are incorporated in an executive instruction or a statutory provision. We, therefore, affirm the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court".
22. In the instant Scheme of Rule 1993 Schedule 2 on which emphasis was made by the counsel for respondent appended to R. 5(1) of the Rules Para 14 suffice it to say that the State Government has highlighted for making payment of scale of pay & (Downloaded on 18/08/2025 at 10:02:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30362] (16 of 25) [CW-2071/2003] allowances for recognized institution as per rules of the state govt. but as noticed there are no rules to this effect framed by the state government so far prescribing scale of pay & allowances for employees of unaided educational institution and what being urged by counsel for respondent if still has been violated it may be within the institution and the state government but employee of unaided institution cannot seek mandamus regarding scale of pay & allowances equal to and in parity to the employees of government institution more so when the legislature has confined as regards scale of pay & allowances of employees of the aided institution similar to the employees of govt. institution but we make it further clear that for other purpose as regards recruitment, recognition, condition of service, leave, accounts & audit, conduct & discipline, constitution of managing committee etc. the legislative in its wisdom has put its control over the recognized institutions irrespective of the fact whether the institution is aided or unaided but in the instant matter scale of pay & allowances is the subject mater in our considered view under the Scheme of Act 1989 & Rules 1993 it is confined to the employees of non govt. aided institution and not for the employees of non government recognized unaided institutions.
23. As regards judgment on which learned single Judge has placed reliance of the Apex Court in (1997) 3 SCC 571 : AIR 1998 SC 295 it was based on principles of equal pay for equal work enshrined in Art. 39(d) of the Constitution but that could always be referred in reference to the scope of the relevant Act and Rules framed thereunder but under the present Scheme of the Act 1989 & Rules 1993 it does not provide scale of pay & allowance to such of the employees of the unaided institution and the teacher of unaided institution cannot seek mandamus in isolation u/Art. 39(d) of the Constitution and parity with the employees of the govt. institution and apart from it the respondent employee was an untrained teacher and there is no provision under the Scheme of govt. rules to recruit untrained teacher and the fact is that the government does not recognize untrained teacher in its establishment and under these facts and circumstances parity even otherwise cannot be claimed by the respondent employee for scale of pay & allowances admissible to the employee of the government institution as prayed for and accordingly, in our considered view the judgment of the learned single Judge and so also of the Educational Tribunal are not legally sustainable."
26. The judgment of K. Krishnamacharyulu (supra) as referred by the petitioner has been considered by the (Downloaded on 18/08/2025 at 10:02:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30362] (17 of 25) [CW-2071/2003] Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushmita Basu (supra) and it has been held as under:
"3.It was mainly complaining about the refusal of the management to implement the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission with effect from 1-1-1988 retrospectively, that the teachers went to court. We asked the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants as to whether there was any Act, statutory rule or even government order directing private unaided educational institutions to implement the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission especially in the context of the fact that the salaries and emoluments of teachers of private unaided institutions were not the subject-matter of reference to the Third Pay Commission. Learned counsel fairly submitted that there was no statutory provision, rule or binding order, but referred to the decision of this Court in Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Assn. v. Union of India [(1986) 4 SCC 707 : (1987) 2 ATC 35 : (1987) 1 SCR 238] and submitted that the principle recognised therein should be applied to teachers like the appellants as well. Learned counsel conceded that there was no provision corresponding to Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 in the Bengal Act. But the submission was that the appellants were approved teachers and they were also doing the same work as teachers of government schools and aided schools and in the circumstances "equal pay for equal work"
principle could be directed to be implemented and in that context the appellants could be granted relief. This was met by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents by pointing out that the institution had not only implemented the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission but has also implemented the recommendations of the Fourth and Fifth Pay Commissions, though it was not bound to do so and there could be no grievance that teachers are being paid salaries that are not comparable with that of the teachers of government schools and aided schools. With reference to the pleadings, it was pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that the teachers of the first respondent institution, in fact, were enjoying some additional benefits which are not available to teachers of government institutions and aided institutions. It was also pointed out that out of the very many teachers in the school, only three of them, the appellants before us, have refused to enter into an agreement with the first respondent and as observed by this Court in Reserve Bank of India v. C.N. Sahasranaman [1986 Supp SCC 143 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 547 :
(1986) 2 SCR 881] the fact that a few are not satisfied, is no ground for interference by court or for grant of relief in their favour when by and large the (Downloaded on 18/08/2025 at 10:02:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30362] (18 of 25) [CW-2071/2003] position adopted by the institution is found to be fair and just and is accepted by all other teachers. We find considerable merit in the submissions on behalf of the respondents. In the absence of a statutory provision, we are not in a position to agree with learned counsel for the appellants that interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is warranted in this case. We find on the whole that there has been just treatment of the teachers by the first respondent institution and there is no reason to interfere even on the ground that the appellants are being treated unfairly by their employer, the educational institution, or on the basis that this is a case in which the conscience of the court is shocked, compelling it to enter the arena to afford relief to the teachers.
4. In this context, we must also notice that the writ petition in the High Court is filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing a private educational institution to implement the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission including their implementation with retrospective effect. Even the decision relied on by learned counsel for the appellants, namely, K. Krishnamacharyulu v. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engg. [(1997) 3 SCC 571 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 841 : (1997) 2 SCR 368] shows that interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus by the Court against a private educational institution like the first respondent herein, would be justified only if a public law element is involved and if it is only a private law remedy no writ petition would lie. We think that even going by the ratio of that decision, a writ of mandamus could not have been issued to the first respondent in this case.
27. The aforesaid judgment of K. Krishnamacharyulu (supra) has also been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in another judgment of Satimbla Sharma (supra) where after examining the earlier judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"13. We cannot also issue a mandamus to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that the conditions of provisional affiliation of schools prescribed by the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination stipulate in clause (5)(b) that the salary and allowances and other benefits of the staff of the affiliated school must be comparable to that prescribed by the State Department of Education because such conditions for provisional affiliation are not statutory provisions or executive instructions, which are enforceable in law. Similarly, we cannot issue a mandamus to give effect to the recommendations of the report of Education (Downloaded on 18/08/2025 at 10:02:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30362] (19 of 25) [CW-2071/2003] Commission 1964-66 that the scales of pay of school teachers belonging to the same category but working under different managements such as Government, local bodies or private managements should be the same, unless the recommendations are incorporated in an executive instruction or a statutory provision. We, therefore, affirm the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court."
28. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Managing Committee, Tegor Bal Niketan Samiti (supra) after considering the judgment of T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) and K. Krishnamacharyulu, as referred by the petitioner has held that Unaided Private Educational Institution are not obligated to pay their employees the same salary and allowances as those provided to the employees in Government or aided institutions. The relevant paras are reproduced hereunder:-
"10. In Satimbla Sharma (Supra), while dealing with a controversy arising out of a similar factual matrix, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that private unaided minority schools/institutes are not under any duty to ensure equal pay for equal work. The relevant extract is reproduced herein-under:--
".We also do not think that the Court could issue a mandamus to a private unaided school to pay the salary and allowances equal to the salary and allowances payable to teachers of Government schools or Government aided schools. This is because the salary and allowances of teachers of a private unaided school is a matter of contract between the school and the teacher and is not within the domain of public law.
11. Similarly, in Adarsh Vidya Mandir Samiti (Supra), while dealing with a similar controversy, the Division Bench of this Court held as under:
"14. From the relevant provisions of the Act & Rules referred to, it envisages that Section 16 of the Act of 1989 while regulates the recruitment and conditions of service, including qualifications, pay, gratuity, insurance etc. of aided institutions in the State and at the same time Section 29 further mandates that the scales of pay and allowances except compensatory allowances shall be admissible to the employees of the aided institution which may not be less than those prescribed for the staff belonging to similar categories in Government institution and Section 31 ensures regarding payment of salary to the employees of aided institutions and if Section 16 and Section 29 with Section 31 are read (Downloaded on 18/08/2025 at 10:02:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30362] (20 of 25) [CW-2071/2003] conjointly it makes explicitly clear that while the State regulate the terms and conditions of employment of recognized institution but the State intends to ensure the scale of pay & allowances for employees of aided institutions which may not be less than those prescribed for employees of Govt. institutions and at the same time, the rules were framed by the State Government in exercise of power conferred by sec. 43 of the Act, 1989 regulating the recognition, grant-in-aid and service conditions etc. of the Non-Government Educational Institutions for better implementation and for giving effect to the provisions of the Act in furtherance thereof the State Govt. intended to monitor and lay down procedure for recognition of the institution and to regulate their grant-in-aid, accounts, audit and general conditions of service which includes recruitment, disciplinary enquiries and the procedure to be adopted for inflicting penalty and at the same time for meeting out the removal of difficulties R. 93 take note of doubts arising in regard to interpretation of any of the provisions of the Scheme of rules or their applicability, the State Govt. reserves its authority and its decision is final, however, for recognition of an institution the procedure has been provided in Schedule 2 to R. 5(1) of Rules, 1993 which indicates various requirement for an educational institution to comply with for grant of recognition of a Non Govt. institution and Clause 14 relates to pay and allowances to be paid as per the Government rule but no such rules if any framed by the State Govt. regarding payment of scale of pay to the employees of a recognized unaided institution has been placed before the Court. However, the provisions of the Act, 1989 and Rules, 1993 framed thereunder clearly mandates such scale of pay and allowances are payable to the employee of aided institution which shall not be less than those prescribed for the staff belonging to similar category in the Govt. institution. Relevant Para 14 of Schedule 2 appended to Rules, 1993 reads ad infra.
22. In the instant Scheme of Rule 1993 Schedule 2 on which emphasis was made by the counsel for respondent appended to R. 5(1) of the Rules Para 14 suffice it to say that the State Government has highlighted for making payment of scale of pay & allowances for recognized institution as per rules of the State Govt. but as noticed there are no rules to this effect framed by the State Government so far prescribing scale of pay & allowances for employees of unaided educational institution and what being urged by counsel for respondent if still has been violated it may be within the institution and the State Government but employee of unaided institution cannot seek mandamus regarding scale of pay & allowances equal to and in parity to the employees of Government institution (Downloaded on 18/08/2025 at 10:02:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30362] (21 of 25) [CW-2071/2003] moreso when the legislature has confined as regards scale of pay & allowances of employees of the aided institution similar to the employees of Govt. institution but we make it further clear that for other purpose as regards recruitment, recognition, condition of service, leave, accounts & audit, conduct & discipline, constitution of managing committee etc. the legislative in its wisdom has put its control over the recognized institutions irrespective of the fact whether the institution is aided or unaided but in the instant matter scale of pay & allowances is the subject-matter in our considered view under the scheme of Act, 1989 & Rules, 1993 it is confined to the employees of Non Govt. aided institution and not for the employees of Non- Government recognized unaided institutions.
12. Identically, in Rekha Devani (Supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that the employees of private unaided institutions are not entitled to claim pay equal to those in Government or aided institutions, as unaided institutions are not state and therefore, they are not bound by the principle of equal pay for equal work. The relevant extract is reproduced herein-under:
"10. From the reading of the above-quoted Sections 16 and 29 of the Act, 1989 it becomes clear that the State Government is empowered to regulate the recruitments and conditions of service including pay etc. of persons appointed as employees of only aided institutions in the State. And that scales of pay and allowances except compensatory allowances with respect to all the employees of an aided institutions only shall not be less than those prescribed for the staff pertaining to similar categories in Government institutions. In the result, the Management of an unaided educational institution is not under a statutory obligation to pay its employees the same scale of pay which employees of similar categories in Government institutions or aided institutions are being paid. In the case of Satimbla Sharma (supra), exactly the same controversy was dealt with by the Supreme Court and it held that unaided private schools are not State within the meaning of Article 36 read with Article 12 of the Constitution and as the obligation to ensure equal pay for equal work in Article 39(d) is on the State, a private unaided minority school (educational institution) is not under any duty to ensure equal pay for equal work. The Supreme Court also took note of the fact that employees of Government educational institutions are paid out of Government funds and the employees of Government aided educational institutions are paid mostly out Government funds whereas the employees of private unaided educational institutions are paid out of the fees and other resources of such institutions. In this case, the Supreme Court has also held that decision in Frank Anthony Public School Employees (Downloaded on 18/08/2025 at 10:02:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30362] (22 of 25) [CW-2071/2003] Association (supra), does not assist similarly situated appellants in any manner because the guarantee of equality is not available against unaided private school (educational institute). The Supreme Court has also clarified that Courts cannot issue a mandamus to a private unaided school to pay salary and allowances equal to the salary and allowances payable to similarly situated employees of Government schools or Government aided schools because salary and allowances of employees of private unaided schools is a matter of contract between the school and employees and is not within the domain of public law."
13. Therefore, relying upon the observations made herein-above, it is noted that the petitioner-appellant is an unaided institution as per the Act of 1989. Thus, no employee therein can claim parity with employees serving in Government institutions in wake of Section 29 of the Act of 1989 read with Rule 34 of the Rules of 1993. Moreover, in the facts of the present case, owing to the unaided nature of the institute, the services of the respondent-employee are to be governed by the terms of contract/agreement executed on 25.03.1996. In this regard, reliance can be placed on the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481 wherein it was held that in cases of private institutions, the relationship between the management and the employees is contractual in nature. Hence, the respondent-employee cannot claim beyond the stipulated terms of the contract which provide pay scale of 2,200-4,000 with admissible Dearance Allowance only. Consequentially, the respondent-employee is not entitled for revision of the pay-scale to its corresponding fixation in the Vth Pay Commission for the reason that there is no provision in the agreement/contract for revision of the same, and the said agreement has been duly signed by the respondent-employee."
29. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kamla Bai (supra) has held as under:
"5. The perusal of the provisions quoted above reveals its applicability to the aided institution in the State. The State Government is having powers to regulate the terms and conditions of employment of aided institution of the State as per Section 16 of the Act of 1989 and as per Section 29 of the Act of 1989, pay and allowances of the employee of aided institution should not be less than prescribed for the State employees belonging to similar categories to the government institution. The respondent No.3 is a private institution and not an aided institution.(Downloaded on 18/08/2025 at 10:02:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30362] (23 of 25) [CW-2071/2003]
6. The question comes as to whether a declaration can be given by the High Court contrary to statutory provisions. Sections 16 and 29 of the Act of 1989 are specific and applies only to aided institution whereas declaration is sought to apply Sections 16 and 29 of the Act of 1989 to the unaided institution. If declaration is given then it would amount to rewriting provision of law and thereby, legislating he law, which is within the competence of legislature only. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association (supra) has given following direction in para No.21, which is quoted hereunder for ready reference:
"21. The result of our discussion is that Section 12 of the Delhi School Education Act which makes the provision of Chapter IV inapplicable to unaided minority institutions is discriminatory and void except to the extent that it makes Section 8(2) inapplicable to unaided minority institutions. We, therefore, grant a declaration to that effect and direct the Union of India and the Delhi Administration and its officers, to enforce the provisions of Chapter IV (except 'Section 8(2) in the manner provided in the Chapter in the case of the Frank Anthony Public School. The management of the school is directed not to give effect to the orders of suspension passed against the members of the staff."
8. I find that said judgment was considered later on by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satimbla Sharma & Ors. v. St. Paul's Senior Secondary School & Ors. reported in (2011) 13 SCC 760. Therein, it was held that Court cannot issue a mandamus to a private unaided school to pay salary and allowances equal to the salary and allowances payable to the teachers of government school or government-aided schools. It was also held that where the statutory provision casts a duty on a private unaided school to pay the same salary and allowances to its teachers as are being paid to teachers of government-aided schools, then a writ of mandamus can be issued. In the instant case, prayer is for application of Sections 16 and 29 of the Act of 1989 on the unaided institution, though not applicable as per the said provision. Relevant paras of the judgment in the case of St. Paul's Senior Secondary School & Ors. (supra) are quoted hereunder for ready reference:
"23.We also do not think that the Court could issue a mandamus to a private unaided school to pay the salary and allowances equal to the salary and allowances payable to teachers of Government schools or Government aided schools. This is because the salary and allowances of teachers of a private unaided school is a matter of contract between the school and the teacher and is not within the domain of public law.
24. In Sushmita Basu and Ors. v. Ballygunge Siksha Samity and Ors. the teachers of a recognized private school known as Ballygunge Siksha Sadan in (Downloaded on 18/08/2025 at 10:02:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30362] (24 of 25) [CW-2071/2003] Calcutta filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Calcutta praying for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the authorities of the school to fix the salary of teaching and non-teaching staff of the school and to remove all anomalies in the scales of pay as recommended by the Third Pay Commission as extended to other Government aided schools and Government schools and this Court held that in the absence of statutory provision no such direction can be issued by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
25. Where a statutory provision casts a duty on a private unaided school to pay the same salary and allowances to its teachers as are being paid teachers of Government aided schools, then a writ of mandamus to the school could be issued to enforce such statutory duty. But in the present case, there was no statutory provision requiring a private unaided school to pay to its teachers the same salary and allowances as were payable to teachers of Government schools and therefore a mandamus could not be issued to pay to the teachers of private recognized unaided schools the same salary and allowances as were payable to Government institutions.
26. In K. Krishnamacharyulu and Ors. vs. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering and Anr. (supra), relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Appellants, executive instructions were issued by the Government that the scales of pay of Laboratory Assistants as non teaching staff of private colleges shall be at par with the government employees and this Court held that even though there were no statutory rules, the Laboratory Assistants as non-teaching staff of private college were entitled to the parity of the pay- scales as per the executive instructions of the Government and the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is wide enough to issue a writ for payment of pay on par with government employees. In the present case, there are no executive instructions issued by the Government requiring private schools to pay the same salary and allowances to their teachers as are being paid to teachers of Government schools or Government aided schools.
12. In the light of the discussion made above, the declaration sought to apply to Sections 16 and 29 of the Act of 1989 to even unaided institution cannot be accepted. It goes against the statutory provision. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly."
30. After analyzing the aforesaid provisions of the Act of 1989 and the Rules 1993 as well as in the light of aforesaid precedential law, this Court is of the considered view that the (Downloaded on 18/08/2025 at 10:02:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30362] (25 of 25) [CW-2071/2003] employees of unaided recognized institutions are not entitled for the same pay and allowances equal to the pay and allowances admissible to the same category of the staff in Government-
Educational Institutions. Thus, learned Tribunal has committed no mistake whatsoever in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner view order dated 12.09.2002.
31. Resultantly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed on account of being meritless and devoid of any substance.
(ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU /14 (Downloaded on 18/08/2025 at 10:02:16 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)