Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In M/s. Laxmi & Co. Vs. Dr. Anant R. Deshpande and Another

- (1973) 1 SCC 37, the Supreme Court held that the court can take notice of subsequent events. But such notice is taken in order to shorten litigation, to preserve rights of both the parties and to subserve the ends of justice, for example where the court finds that because of altered circumstances, like devolution of interest, it is necessary to shorten litigation or where the original relief has become inappropriate by subsequent events or when the Court finds that the judgment of the Court cannot be carried into effect because of the changed circumstances, or when the Court finds that the matter is no longer in controversy or that the disputed property is no longer available. The Division Bench in the Management Committee Sh. Bhagwan Das Todi College, supra, taking note of the fact that large number of such matters are being filed before the Education Tribunal as also the High Court by employees, who are working with different non-government aided educational institutions, acknowledged that the peculiar circumstances where the management of the non-government aided educational institution fail to pay the salary to its (26 of 33) [CW-15837/2018] employees, as referred to in sub-section (1) or in Section 29 of the Act of 1989, the Director of Education or any officer authorized by him, as per Section 31(2) is competent to deduct such salary from the amount payable as the next grant-in-aid or from the amount of any subsequent grant-in-aid and pay directly to the staff such salary on behalf of the Management and such payment shall be considered to be deemed payment of money to the Management of the institution itself. While interpreting Section 31(2) of the Act of 1989 it was held that grant-in-aid can be sanctioned and paid directly by the State Government to the employee of the aided institution in the exigency if arises as being prescribed by the Legislature in its wisdom under Section 31(2) of the Act of 1989 and the financial liability which been created upon the State Government on payment of grant-in-aid against the approved expenditure to the aided institution at-least for the period till the employees were working against such sanctioned and aided post. It is further held that such employees could not be further compelled to again go in litigation and therefore while rejecting the argument of the State based on misconstruction of Rule 5(vii) of the Rules of 2010 has taken a pragmatic view by directing that similar benefits of the aforesaid judgment be extended to all similarly situated employees. There is therefore no reason why the executing court should not execute the aforesaid decree against the State Government in proportion of the grant- in-aid committed by it to the aided educational institution, particularly when it was a party before the Tribunal and the Tribunal itself had directed it to ensure compliance of the judgment from the petitioner-institution. In doing so, the (27 of 33) [CW-15837/2018] executing court can very much apply the aforesaid DB judgment in the Management Committee Sh. Bhagwan Das Todi College, supra.