- (1.) We have heard learned counsels for both the parties. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 733/2014 and Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1422/2013 have been filed with delay of 165 days and 39 days respectively. The delay has been explained satisfactorily in both the appeals and is accordingly condoned.
(2.) By the order dated 04/09/2013 the learned Single Bench of this Court, while disposing of the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5852/2012, following directions were issued:-- "In view of above, I find that liability to pay gratuity remains on the institution till its seeks exemption from the application of rules or from payment of gratuity. The institution can however make a representation for payment of gratuity to be approved expenditure to extend benefit of grant-in-aid, in the light of the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Welfare Society . In those circumstances, respondent-government is directed to consider it sympathetically taking note of the fact that the petitioner institution is doing pious duty of imparting education to disabled and mentally challenged children and not charging fee therefor. So far as other benefits extended by the tribunal is concerned, no doubt, initial liability remains on the institution to pay it to the employee and then to get reimbursement of the amount from the government but that situation remains with the institution receiving grant-in-aid upto 90% as they are required to bear part of the benefit thus needs to first pay the amount and then to seek reimbursement but, in this case, it would be nothing but multiplicity of action which may otherwise delay extension of benefit to the employee. In view of above, it becomes an exceptional case of its nature. The State Government is accordingly directed to pay other benefits directly to the employee to the extent of approved expenditure, however, it should be based on the calculation to be furnished by the institution and subject to scrutiny by the State Government. In doing so, multiplicity of the actions would be avoided for a case where institution is receiving 100% grant-in-aid."
(3.) Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-Managing Committee Badhir Vidhyala (for short Managing Committee) has filed this D.B. Special Appeal No. 733/2014, and respondent No. 2-Kailash Narain Kakkar (for short the employee) has filed the other Special Appeal No. 1422/2013. The "Managing Committee" of the school has filed a D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17136 of 2013 for following reliefs: "(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent may directed to declare Rule-14 ultra vires to the constitution and alternatively the respondents be grant relaxation of Rule-14 under rule 92 and 100% grant in aid be directed to pay the institution to meet expenditure incurred and also against the payment to be made to employees after retirement along with interest. (ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent be directed to amend the Rules of 1993 accordingly taken into consideration of institution working for disabled children. (iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly passed in favour of the petitioner.";