Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) ASSAILING the judgment and order dated 25th November, 2009, only to the limited extent the claims declined, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition praying for the following relief(s): - "(i) The judgment and order dated 25.11.2009 may be set aside only to the limited extent the Tribunal has not granted all the claims of the petitioner. (ii) It may kindly be declared and directed that jurisdiction of civil Courts having been ousted under the Act the Tribunal has to decide all disputes raised under Section 21 of the Act. (iii) It may kindly be declared and directed that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to adjudicate a dispute and grant appropriate relief is not restricted or curtailed by the provisions of Limitation Act. (iv) It may kindly be declared and directed that the Tribunal having upheld the petitioner's claim regarding arrears of Dearness Allowance she is entitled to receive the entire amount along with interest as claimed in the petition under section 21. (v) It may kindly be declared and directed that the respondent No. 1 and 2 are liable to pay interest on all claims. (vi) It may kindly be declared and directed that taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties, documents available on record and provisions of the Act of 1989 the Tribunal committed a jurisdictional error in not granting the relief prayed for by the petitioner towards respondents' liability to repay Rs. 2,31,299/ - which was wrongfully extracted from the petitioner in the name of loan and subsequently appropriated in the garb of charity and the respondents No. 2 & 3 may be directed to refund the said amount along with interest. (vii) The expression "as admissible under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as amended from time to time" in Rule 82 may kindly be declared ultra -vires and unconstitutional and may kindly be struck down. (viii) It may kindly be declared and directed that petitioner is entitled to receive gratuity at part with Teachers who have worked in Government institutions and that accordingly the petitioner is also entitled to receive gratuity as per the enhanced limit of Rs. 10 lacs. (ix) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) BRIEFLY , the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised in the writ application needs to be first noticed. The petitioner was appointed as 'Lecturer' in English by Shri Sathya Sai P.G. College for Women (for short, 'respondent -institute'), on 20th August, 1977, subject to approval of the University of Rajasthan. She was further appointed on probation with effect from 14th November, 1978, and her pay was to be governed according to the Rajasthan Government Rules. She retired attaining the age of superannuation on 31st October, 2007. Since the petitioner was not paid salary of two months and her retirement benefits, besides arrears of pay fixation and dearness allowance were also unlawfully withheld, therefore, she instituted an application before the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, 'the Tribunal'), praying for release of salary of two months, gratuity, leave encashment, arrears of dearness allowance and arrears of pay fixation in UGC pay scale which were taken back in the name of loan and subsequently misappropriated in the garb of donation. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that the State Government vide notification dated 12th September, 2008, enhanced the maximum limit of gratuity from Rs. 3.5 lacs to Rs. 10 lacs. On a consideration of the pleadings of the parties, evidence and materials available on record, the Tribunal restricted the claim of the petitioner to the dearness allowance upto a period of three years. Further the Tribunal has not decided the petitioner's claim regarding refund of arrears of salary consequent to pay fixation in UGC pay scale and instead held that the petitioner should approach the Civil Court for that purpose. The petitioner has also questioned the impugned judgment for being silent on the issue of interest on retiral benefits.
(3.) AT the outset, it may be mentioned that the challenge to the vires of the Rule 82 of the Rules of 1972, was no more pursued by the petitioner and in that view of the matter, the arguments were heard and concluded, restricted to only other prayer clauses but for prayer clause (vii).;