Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who joined the services with the respondent No.3, a Non -Government Educational Institution and who retired on 30.04.2007 from the post of Senior Teacher (Teacher Gr.II), has filed this writ petition stating the grievance against denial of benefit of Revised Pay Scale Rules and of payment towards selection grades, leave encashment, and gratuity.
(2.) IT is submitted that the respondent No. 3 is receiving aid from the State Government under the provisions of the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 ('the Act of 1989') and the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grand -in -Aid and Service Conditions etc.) Rules, 1993 ('the Rules of 1993'). It is further submitted that in terms of Section 29 of the Act of 1989, the employees of the Non -Government Educational Institutions are entitled to the same scales of pay and allowances to which the staff belonging to the similar categories in the Government Institutions are entitled to. The petitioner contends that his salary was revised in accordance with the Pay Scale Rules applicable to the employees of the Government but he was not granted the arrears as a result of such revision; and the benefit of selection grades upon completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service were also not extended to him. According to the petitioner, he approached the respondents a number of times after retirement and requested them to grant the aforesaid benefits and also served a notice on 23.04.2008 but in vain. It is submitted that as per the decision of Court in the case of S.R. Higher Secondary School & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Non - Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur & Ors. : 2002 (5) WLN 3, it is the settled position of law that benefit of selection grades and leave encashment is admissible to the employees of the Non -Government Educational Institution; and that the question of payment of gratuity to the teachers of Non -Government Educational Institution has also been decided in favour of teachers by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Welfare Society Vs. State of Rajasthan: : (2005) 5 SCC 275. The petitioner contends that omission on the part of the respondents runs contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1989 and the law declared by the Courts.
(3.) THE respondents Nos.1 and 2 have filed a reply contending, inter alia, that the petitioner had the efficacious alternative remedy of filing an appeal. It is further submitted that essentially the responsibility of making payment of the claimed amount remains with the respondent No.3 Institution and the answering respondents were only required to extend the grant -in -aid as per law.;