Shri Mahalaxmi Girls Senior Secondary School vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Sangeet Lodha, J.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, a Non-Government Aided Educational Institution, is seeking directions to the respondents to release the amount of grant-in-aid for different financial years duly sanctioned by the competent authority.

Precisely, the grievance of the petitioner is that for the Years 2001-02 to 2010-11, the respondents sanctioned the aid payable to the petitioner-Non-Government Aided Institution, however, the same was not paid due to non-release of fund by the Department of Finance.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being aided institution was bound to extend the benefits of revised pay scale and selection grades on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service and other benefits to its employees holding the aided posts and therefore, the respondents are under an obligation to release the grant-in-aid and reimburse the amount already paid by the petitioner institution to its employees. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents cannot deferred the amount of grant-in-aid for indefinite period, on the pretext that the fund is not released by the Department of Finance.

A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents taking the stand that as per the provisions of the Non-Government Educational Institution Act, 1989 ("Act of 1989") and Rajasthan Non Governmental Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-In-Aid and Service Conditions Etc.), Rules, 1993 ("Rules of 1993"), the institutions are required to first discharge their liabilities and only thereafter, are entitled to claim reimbursement thereof to the extent permissible. It is submitted that by virtue of provisions of Section 7 of the Act of 1989, the aided institution cannot claim the grant-in-aid as a matter of right. It is submitted that the employees of the aided institutions working on aided posts stand absorbed in the Government service under the provisions of Rajasthan Voluntary Education Service Rules, 2010 ("Rules of 2010"), which have come into force vide notification dated 25.1.11. It is submitted that sub-clause (vii) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 2010 specifically provides that no arrears on any account whatsoever including arrears of salary, selection scale, assured career progression or career advancement shall be paid by the State Government to the employees absorbed under the Rules of 2010, for the period prior to the date of joining the Government Service after being appointed under the Rules of 2010 and therefore, the employees who have executed bond in this regard are not entitled for any benefits as specified and therefore, the petitioner institution cannot claim grant-in-aid.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the revised pay scales and the order of the State Government providing for grant of selection grade having been made applicable to the Non-Government Aided Educational Institutions, the respondent-State cannot shirk from its responsibility to reimburse the amount paid to the employees to the extent of grant-in-aid payable to the petitioner institution under the Rules of 1993. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in the matter of S.R. Higher Secondary School and Anr. vs. Rajasthan Non-Governmental Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur and Ors. 2002 (3) WLC (Raj.) 586. Learned counsel submitted that the contention of the respondent-State that the petitioner institution is required to first pay the amount and then claim reimbursement is absolutely misconceived inasmuch as it is only after making the payment that grant-in-aid is claimed by the petitioner institution and as a matter of fact, the same already stands sanctioned by the competent authority of the State, but the payment has not been released.

On the other hand, learned Government Counsel reiterating the stand taken in the reply to the writ petition as aforesaid submitted that no aid can be claimed by any institution as a matter of right and the State Government is at liberty to take policy decision in this regard. Learned counsel submitted that in case of financial crisis the State Government is empowered to stop/reduce or modify the grant-in-aid without assigning any reason whatsoever and therefore, the action of the respondents in withholding the grant-in-aid cannot be faulted with.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

Indisputably, the petitioner is a recognized Non-Government Educational Institution aided by the State Government and therefore, it is entitled to claim the grant-in-aid as per the provisions contained in Chapter-III of the Rules of 1993. Admittedly, as per the decision of this Court in S.R. Sr. Secondary School (supra), the employees of the Non-Governmental Educational Institutions receiving aid under the Rules of 1993 are entitled to benefit of selection grades as admissible to the employees of the State Government on completion of 9 years, 18 years and 27 years of service as also the benefits of dearness allowance and leave encashment at par with the employees of the State Government. That apart, it has been further laid down therein that the aid is admissible on the amount of selection grade and leave encashment payable to the employees of the Non-Governmental Educational Institutions. The said Full Bench decision of this Court stands affirmed by Hon''ble Supreme Court. In this view of the matter, the State Government is under an obligation to release the grant-in-aid on the arrear of salary and allowances paid by the petitioner institution to its employees working against the aided posts. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner is not claiming the amount of grant-in-aid before actual payment being made to its employees, rather the reimbursement was claimed by the petitioner institution after making the payment, which already stands sanctioned by the State Government. Merely because, in terms of the provisions of Section 7, no institution can claim grant in aid as a matter of right, the State Government which has already recognized the institutions for release of grand-in-aid in accordance with the Rules of 1993, cannot be permitted to withhold the amount of grant-in-aid on the pretext that the amount is not released by the Department of Finance. Obviously, the petitioner institution has paid the arrears of salary and allowance to its employees, who were holding the aided posts and therefore, the State Government who has already recognized the petitioner institution and determined amount of grant-in-aid payable, cannot be permitted to shirk from its responsibility to make the payment allegedly for want of budgetary allocation. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner institution is claiming reimbursement of the grant-in-aid against the payments already made to its employees which stand duly sanctioned by the State Government and therefore, the bond if any executed by the employees who have been absorbed in the Government services for not claiming the arrears of salary etc. cannot come in the way of the petitioner institution in claiming the reimbursement.

In this view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the amount of grant-in-aid to the petitioner institution already sanctioned within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount of grant-in-aid payable to the petitioner institution shall carry interest @ 9% with effect from the date the amount became due. No order as to costs.