MANAGING COMMITTEE Vs. VISHWAMBHAR LAL JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition assails the legality and validity of the order dtd. 7/1/2020 passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Laxmangarh District Sikar whereby the objection raised by the petitioners/non-applicants in the execution petition filed by the respondent No.l, has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the respondent No.l was appointed vide order dtd. 20/7/1964 by the petitioner institution as Senior Teacher against a sanctioned and aided post. He retired on29.11.2001 on attaining the age of superannuation. The application No.44/2006 filed by the respondent No.l under Sec. 21 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for brevity, "the Act of 1989") seeking inter alia payment of gratuity came to be allowed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (for brevity, "the Tribunal") vide its judgment dtd. 24/11/2009 and the petitioners were directed to pay to the respondent No.l entire gratuity with 6% interest. On failure to pay the dues as per direction of the learned Tribunal dtd. 24/11/2009, the respondent No.l preferred an execution petition which is sub judice in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Laxmangarh. In the execution petition, an objection was raised by the petitioner as to the amount of gratuity contending that since the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-In-Aid and Service Conditions Etc.) Rules, 1993 (for brevity "the Rules of 1993") came into force with effect from 1/4/1993, the respondent would be entitled for the gratuity for a period from 1/4/1993 till 30/11/2001, i.e., the date of retirement. However, the learned execution Court, vide its order impugned dtd. 7/1/2020, rejected objection of the petitioners and directed payment of gratuity to the respondent No.l taking into consideration his entire length of service.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent employee is not entitled for gratuity computing his service prior to 1/4/1993 i.e. coming into force of the Rules of 1993. Relying on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of Rajasthan Welfare Society Vs. State of Rajasthan: (2005) 5 Supreme Court Cases 275, learned counsel submitted that the "teachers" which are otherwise not included within the definition of employees under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for brevity "the Act of 1972"), have been extended benefit of the gratuity for the first time under Sec. 16 of the Act of 1989 and Rule 82 of the Rules of 1993 and hence, the respondent could not claim benefit for the service rendered prior to 1/4/1993 for computation of gratuity. He submitted that in Civil Appeal No.4970/2011, State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Mahila Mandal, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that since Rules came into force from 1/1/1993, the benefit could not have been extended from the earlier period. Lastly, he submitted that since, the judgment dtd. 24/11/2009 passed by the Tribunal execution whereof has been sought, does not prescribe the service period for which the respondent employee would be entitled for payment of gratuity and hence, the learned executing Court has passed the order impugned exceeding its jurisdiction. He, therefore, prayed for quashing the order dtd. 7/1/2020.