- (1.) THE decision rendered in aforementioned D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.191/2007 shall also govern disposal of connected Writ Petitions, being S.B.C.W.Ps. No.5724/2007, 6515/2007, 6516/2007, 6517/2007, 6518/2007, 6519/2007 and 6520/2007 because common point of law and facts are involved in these appeals.
(2.) THIS is an appeal filed by the writ-petitioner of WP No.1983/2003 against the order dated 13th December 2006 passed by the Single Judge in aforesaid petition. By the impugned order dated 13th December 2006 learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of the writ-petitioner who is represented by the respondents No.1 (i) to 1(iv) as legal representatives late Smt. Rashida Gazdhar and granted the relief claimed by the writ-petitioner in the writ petition; which reads as under: " The matter being covered by the Larger Bench decision of this Court in S.R. Higher Secondary School (supra) which has been upheld even by Hon'ble Supreme Court (2005 (1) WLC 301) the present writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The respondent No.3 is directed to pay to the petitioner benefit of selection scale and its arrears to legal representatives of Smt. Rashida Gazdhar who served with them as Teacher within a period of three months from the date of service of this judgment. The respondent would be at liberty to submit representation to the Government to claim proportionate grant-in-aid in relation to the aforesaid amount in terms of the observations made by Full Bench in para 20. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs." So far as other connected writ petitions are concerned, they arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal dated 28th May 2007 whereby the Tribunal allowed their Applications made under sec.21 of the Rajasthan Non-Governmental Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-aid and Service Conditions etc) Act 1989 (for short, herein after 'the Act') and in consequence granted relief to them as claimed by them in their respective applications. These writ petitions are placed before this Bench because the writ-petitioners in their respective writ petitions sought to challenge the vires of sec.16 of the Act and rule 2(c) of the Rules framed therein. This is how her appeal is tagged with these writ petitions as a group matter. The respondents i.e. the writ-petitioners at the relevant time were working in the appellants-educational institution on the post of Teacher. Their main grievance, for which they filed writ petitions before the writ court and Applications before the Tribunal under sec.21 of the Act, was for claiming Selection Scale by virtue of circular/order dated 25.01.1992 because they were working in the schools receiving grant-in- aid. The question as to whether Teachers of such institutions whose cases are governed by the Act for grant of selection grade was subject matter of judicial debate, to begin with, in a Full Bench decision of this High Court reported in S.R. Higher Secondary School & ors v. Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions � 2002 (3) WLC (Raj.) 586. Their Lordships by their unanimous decision held that the Teachers of the schools are entitled for a selection grade. The Government was not satisfied and hence, filed SLP before the Supreme Court. In Civil Appeal No.9166/2003 and several others, the Supreme Court by their decision dated 15th September 2004 formulated the questions. This is what their Lordships observed in para 2 of the decision: " The judgment rendered by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Tribunal came up for consideration before a Full Bench of the High Court. The questions that were considered by the Full Bench are as under: "(1) Whether the teachers of Non-Government Educational Institutions (for short 'NGEIs') who are receiving grant-in-aid under the Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act') read with the rules framed thereunder, namely the Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-Aid and Service Conditions etc) Rules 1993 (for short 'the rules') 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) Whether the government is bound to give grant-in-aid for selection of the teachers of NGEIs receiving aid, and (3) Whether the teachers of NGEIs receiving aid are entitled for leave encashment benefits after retirement under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder." By the impugned judgment, the aforesaid questions have been answered in favour of teachers of Non-Government Educational Institutions (for short 'NGEIs'). In the present case, we are concerned with aided non-government educational institutions. These institutions are governed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act') and the Rules framed thereunder. The correctness of the impugned judgment in respect of the first two questions has been challenged mainly by the State of Rajasthan. In one Civil Appeal (CA No.9394 of 2003], it was also sought to be challenged by the management. On 18 th August 2004, on a submission made that there has been a change of counsel for the State of Rajasthan, the cases were adjourned for a period of two weeks so that necessary alternative arrangements could be made. The cases are listed as first item today. A request made yesterday for adjournment was not entertained. It was repeated again today. It can be noticed that although the matters were adjourned for two weeks, in fact, they have come up for hearing about four weeks later. Various counsels are appearing in these matters. The decision by the Tribunal was rendered more than five years ago. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan submits that the State Government has neither given any instruction nor any file or papers to him and as such it is not possible to make any submission assailing the impugned judgment of the Full Bench. Learned counsel for appellant in CA No.9394 of 2003 has also failed to make any submission in support of said appeal. Submissions have only been made on behalf of teachers and managements of schools in relation to question No.3. Therefore, we are left to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment to the extent of the answer to the third question in the light of the said submissions."
(3.) WHILE upholding the decision of the Full Bench and dismissing appeal of the State of Rajasthan, their Lordships concluded as under: " Having regard to the aforesaid, we find it difficult to hold that the High Court has committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the employee of the aided private educational institutions in question are entitled to the benefit of leave encashment at par with employees of Government institutions." Consequent upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court, upholding the decision of the Full Bench, the learned Single Judge by the impugned order placed reliance upon these decisions and accordingly issued the impugned directions quoted supra. So far as writ petitions which arose out of Tribunal's order, they were also disposed of almost on the same lines on which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and gave similar directions in favour of writ-petitioners for granting them the benefit of selection grade. ;