- (1.) THIS contempt petition has been filed alleging non compliance of the judgment dated 11 -7 -2013 passed in SBCWP No.11871/2012, wherein this court held the petitioner college entitled to payment within three months of grant -in -aid as approved.
(2.) THE issue in this contempt petition is not about the liability to pay as directed but with regard to procedure to be adopted for the purpose.
(3.) WHILE the counsel for the petitioner Mr. Vivek Dangi emphatically submits that in terms of a holistic reading of the judgment dated 11 -7 -2013 and in terms of the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter 'the 1989 Act') and the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions Rules, 1993 (hereinafter 'the 1993 Rules') the amount of grant -in - aid is to be provisionally first paid to the grantee, as a budgetary allocation as the grantee is only a vehicle for payment of salary to its employees on behalf of the State Government to the extent of the grant -in -aid, aside of its own share of the salary to the employees. It has been submitted that an amount of over Rs.2 crores is to be paid as arrears to the employees of the petitioner college, a charitable institution, which does not have the resources to first make payment of due amounts to its employees and thereafter seek reimbursement from the government. It has been submitted that in the circumstances, the non payment of grant -in -aid due to petitioner college by the respondents under order of this court dated 11 -7 -2013 on the specious ground that the petitioner college first make payment of dues to its employees and then seek reimbursement as grant -in -aid to the extent approved is nothing but an attempt to circumvent the order dated 11 -7 -2013. This tantamounts to contempt, as if the requirement of first paying dues to the employees is sustained contrary to the 1989 Act, 1993 Rules and the judgment dated 11 -7 -2013 passed by this court, the judgment shall remain only on paper as it is impossible for the petitioner college to comply and pay the amounts due out of its meagre funds. Mr. Inderjeet Singh, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents submits that in terms of the judgment dated 11 -7 -2013, more particularly point No.2 thereof wherein it has been stated that arrears of salary paid by "petitioner college" to "its employees" as a result of revision of pay scales in accordance with the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1998, the grant -in -aid was not construed as a budgetary allocation where the approved grant -in -aid is to be first paid. The petitioner is only entitled to reimbursement subsequent to payment of due amounts to its employees. Mr. Singh AAG has placed reliance on various judgments of this court to contend that the aided educational institutions are entitled to grant -in -aid as approved but are first required to make payment of salary and other benefits to its employees on approved posts and only thereafter entitled to reimbursement as per the percentage of grant -in -aid relative to the grantee's approved expenses.;