N.L.TIBREWAL,J. - (1.) THIS batch of writ petitions can be conveniently disposed of jointly by a common judgment since the questions raised in these are common. Challenge in the petitions is laid to the orders of Non -Government Educational Institutions Tribunal. Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short the Tribunal), whereby direction has been given to the Management of the aided educational institutions to pay gratuity to their employees as admissible under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, in the course of their arguments, made following submissions to challenge the impugned orders: (1) The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute relating to gratuity and if employees of the institutions were aggrieved for non -payment of gratuity by their respective Management, the remedy available to them was under the Payment of Gratuity Act to approach the Controlling Authority for deciding their disputes. (ii) The teachers of educational institutions are not entitled to claim gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act in absence of notification of the Central Government under Section -1(3)(c) of the Act. Further, a teacher does not fall within the definition of an 'employee' contained in Section 2(e) of the Act. (iii) In case, it is held that employees of the aided educational institutions are entitled to get gratuity by virtue of Rule -82 of the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant -in -aid and Service Conditions Etc.) Rules, 1993 (for short the Rules of 1993). then too, the employees would be entitled to get gratuity for the period commencing from the date of enforcement of the Rules. In other words, Rule 82 can be given prospective effect and period of service rendered by an employee prior to enforcement of the Rules cannot be taken into consideration for assessing the amount of gratuity payable to him. (iv) The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to award interest while directing the Management to pay the amount of gratuity to the employees.
(2.) THE factual aspect in all these petitions are common and undisputed. Relationship of employer and employee and the fact that Management of every educational institution is getting aid from the State Government are not disputed. Before enforcement of the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institutions Act. 1989 (for short the Act of 1989), which came into force wef 1.1.1993 and the Rules of 1993, the educational institutions were getting grant -in -aid under the Grant -in -Aid Rules for Educational and Cultural Institutions in Rajasthan, 1963 though these rules were of administrative nature. After the Act of 1989 and the Rules framed thereunder, grants -in -aid to the aided educational institutions are assessed and given according to the provisions contained in them. Employees of the petitioners, on their retirement, were paid retirement benefits except the amount of gratuity. Hence, they approached to the Tribunal by filing applications under Section 21 of the Act of 1989 in respect of non -payment of gratuity. The Tribunal has held that by virtue of Rule 82, the amount of gratuity is payable to the employees and liability of the management of aided educational institutions to pay gratuity to their employees after enforcement of the Rules 1993 has to be assessed as per the period of their service rendered by them. The Tribunal, therefore, allowed applications of the employees with direction to the Management to pay gratuity. In some matters directions to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date given in the order has also been given. Payment of gratuity is as a measure of social security like other retrial benefits. It is intended to safe -guard the employees who served the employer for long period from penury in their declining years of old age and the helpless dependents of the employees in the event of their death. The amount of gratuity is assessed as one time payment and the quantum bears relation to the length of service and emoluments drawn by the employee. Once gratuity was being treated in the nature of a gracious gift by an employer, its payment could not be compelled by an employee. This concept is no more applicable if gratuity is payable under some Scheme or statutory provision either under the Payment of Gratuity Act or any other law. If gratuity is payable to an employee as a condition of service or a statutory obligation, then, it is neither a bounty nor a matter or grace payable depending upon the sweet will of the employer and the employer can be compelled to make payment of gratuity as per entitlement of the employee.
(3.) TO impart education to the citizens is a State function. Various provisions of the Constitution of India now make it obligatory for the State to provide education for the citizens and every citizen has a right to get education. Since huge financial lay out was involved in extending the benefit of education to the citizens, the State Government has been discharging its obligation through State owned or State recognised educational institutions. By granting recognisation to private educational institutions, the State Government creates an agency to fulfil its obligation under the Constitution. The State Government exercises its powers to regulate private institutions by granting recognisation to them, State can, inter -alia, regulate conditions of employment including disciplinary proceedings, in order to protect interest of the teachers employed in private schools or colleges.;