J.K. Ranka, J. - (1.) BOTH these writ petitions have been preferred against the order dated 21/1/2011 passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Chirawa, Jhunjhunu and hence are being disposed of by a common order.
(2.) THE brief facts which may be noticed in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 10455/2011 are that the petitioner was appointed as lecturer in Economics on 3/11/1972 in Indira Gandhi Balika Niketan Post Graduate College, Arawata, Jhunjhunu. Since she was not allowed to work from 25/09/1995, she filed an application before the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order Dt. 12.06.2000 allowed the application filed by the petitioner holding that the petitioner is entitled to work as a Lecturer in Economics and on joining of her duties, she would regularly mark presence in the attendance register. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner filed an execution petition before the executing court for executing the order Dt. 12.06.2000, the executing court vide order Dt. 16.01.2004 issued an attachment warrant of Rs. 25,87,909/ - against the respondent institution. It has further been brought to the notice of the court that the respondent No. 3 i.e. Institution filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court challenging the order Dt. 12.06.2000 and this court passed an interim order in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5661/2001 on 29/09/2005 directing the respondent institution to at least allow the petitioner to work in the institution subject to the final outcome of the writ petition and in the meanwhile, directed the petitioner not to pursue for execution of the order Dt. 12.06.2000. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner was allowed to join the post of Lecturer in Economics on 07/10/2005 subject to the decision of the writ petition and the proceedings of the execution application had been deferred due to interim order Dt. 29.09.2005 passed by this Court. Petitioner in the meantime retired on 31.08.2006 after attaining the age of superannuation. It has been further brought to the notice of this court that the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 3 y -institution was dismissed by this Court vide order Dt. 15.12.2008 and it is contended by counsel for the petitioner that in the light of writ petition having been dismissed on 15.12.2008 the earlier order of the executing court dated 16.01.2004 issuing attachment warrant of Rs. 25,87,909/ - revived but in the impugned order the executing court not only failed to take notice of the earlier order of the executing court Dt. 16.01.2004 but in a casual and cursory manner gave simple direction for payment to the extent of only Rs. 2,15,127/ -. The learned counsel contended that the impugned order is absolutely silent with regard to the payment for which the petitioner was entitled to receive which according to her totals to Rs. 49,62,650/ - including salary and other allowances from July 1995 to November, 2003 of Rs. 25,87,909/ - and an amount of Rs. 23,74,741/ - calculated from December, 2003 to August, 2006 plus gratuity, leave salary and other arrears. It is further contended that during the last more than 20 years not a single pie has been paid by the institution or by the Government of Rajasthan and it is further contended that the institution is receiving grant in aid to the extent of 90% and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed by directing the institution/Government of Rajasthan to pay entire amount for which the petitioner is entitled to receive. She relied on : 2013 (4) WLC (Raj.) 350 Seth G.L. Bihani S.D. Sr. Secondary School & 3 ors v. State of Rajasthan and ors and : 2002(3) WLC(Raj.) 586, S.R. Higher Secondary School & Anr. v. Raj. Non -Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur and 23 others. Per contra, counsel for the State Shri Manu Bhargava contended that the Government has no role to play in the present case and the executing court was not proper in directing the State Government to pay the amount of even Rs. 2,15,127/ - as the same is required to be paid by the institution and then as per the procedure the institution only can claim for reimbursement of the same from the State Government. It is further contended by him that the decree is not executable beyond its term. He relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vedic Girls Senior Secondary School Arya Samaj Mandir Jhajjar v. Smt. Rajwanti and ors, ( : 2007(2) WLC (SC) Civil 6, the case of Gurudev Singh v. Narain Singh, : 2008(1) WLC (SC) Civil 564 and the judgment of this court in the case of State of Rajasthan and ors v. Jeev Raj Singh, RLW, 1997 (3) Raj 1991.
(3.) NO -one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent -institution despite the name of the counsel having been shown in the cause list.;