Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Per contra, Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Deputy Government Advocate opposed the relief. By taking this Court to various paragraphs of the return, it is contended that although it is not in dispute that the institution wherein petitioners were working are receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government, the petitioners have no right to get the benefit of "Krammonati". He heavily relied on the amendment in the Adhiniyam w.e.f. 31.3.2000 whereby the State Government withdrew from the liability to pay grant-in-aid in faced manner. It is contended in the return that the Supreme Court has passed an interim order against the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Dr. Sharique Ali (supra). It is further submitted that in certain matters, the Principal Seat granted the benefit of 5th Pay Commission to the employees which was not implemented and, therefore, a contempt petition was filed. However, the Supreme Court has stayed the contempt proceedings. The said order of Supreme Court dated 1.9.2008 is placed on record as Annexure R-7. In the return, heavy reliance is placed on the amended Adhiniyam (26 of 2000) and the interim order of Supreme Court passed in the case of State of MP Vs. Dr. Sharique Ali (supra) dated 6.5.2002 (Annexure R-1).