- (1.) THESE two intra-court appeals, related with the same subject matter and involving akin issues, have been considered together and are taken up for disposal by this common order. By way of these appeals, the appellant, a non-government educational institution seeks to question the common order dated 17.12.2012 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petitions (CWP Nos.19674/2012 and 19675/2012) preferred against the respective orders dated 18.10.2012 as passed by the Executing Court in the proceedings for execution of the order passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Tribunal ('the Tribunal') on 31.07.2006.
(2.) IN the said order dated 18.10.2012, the only question considered by the Executing Court, i.e., the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) Jaipur Metro, Jaipur on the application moved by the judgment-debtor, i.e., the present appellant was as to whether the State Government was required to be impleaded as a party to the execution proceedings on the submissions that the liability in the present matter is to be borne by the State Government too. The orders passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in other writ petitions of the institution, i.e., dated 04.07.2008 in CWP No.8526/2006 and dated 03.07.2008 in CWP No.8527/2006 were also referred. The Executing Court found that there was no necessity of impleading the State Government as a party to the proceedings. After, thus, rejecting the application, the Executing Court also proceeded to issue the process for recovery of the amount due under the order in question. The order dated 18.10.2012 in its entirety, as found on the record of SAW No.89/2013, could be noticed for ready reference as under: - .........[vernacular ommited text]...........
(3.) THE learned Single Judge found the appellant-institution's challenge to the order so passed by the Executing Court devoid of any merit and proceeded to dismiss the writ petitions with the following observations: "I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and find that execution of the order of the Tribunal has been sought by the respondent. The State Government has no role to play inter-se between the employee and them because execution is between the employee and the petitioner being employer. Even if, judgment in the earlier writ petition of the petitioner is looked into, this Court had given liberty to seek release of grant-in-aid, if it is an approved expenditure under the Act of 1989. There is no direction on the Government to pay amount to the employee so as to implead Government as party in execution. The State Government has no role to play in the execution petition because Tribunal's order has to be satisfied by the petitioner. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order by which application moved by the petitioner has been dismissed. The writ petitions are found to be devoid of merit, hence, same are dismissed. This disposes of stay applications also. ";