CW 9661/06 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** 1-Civil Writ Petition No.9661/2006 Prin. Dayanand College, Ajmer & Anr. Versus State, Yograj Sirohi & Ors. 2-Civil Writ Petition No.9662/2006 Prin. Dayanand College, Ajmer & Anr. Versus State, Mahendra Pal Tyagi & Ors. Date of Order ::: 13/01/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. RM Jain for Mr. Arjun Karnani, for petitioners Institute. Mr. JK Agrawal, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for State-respondents Mr. PS Sirohi for respondent (Teachers/Employees ) At joint request, since instant petitions involve identical controversy, were heard together and are being disposed of by this order at admission stage. Instant petitions have been filed by Principal Dayanand College, Ajmer & its Managing Committee DAV College duly 90% aided by State Government, assailing common order dt.30/06/06 (Ann.11) passed by Rajasthan Non-Govt. Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (“Tribunal”), whereby applications filed by employees (respondents herein) U/s 21 of Rajasthan Non-Govt. Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (“Act, 1989”) were accepted and petitioner-Institution was directed to pay arrears accrued as a result of grant of UGC pay scales alongwith interest @9% per annum for the period from 01/01/1996 to 31/12/2001 to CW 9661/06 //2// respondents-Teacher. Counsel has confined his contention only to the extent that once the institution is 90% aided and arrears of revised UGC pay scales for the period in question is a part of pay and is an approved expenditure, State Government is under obligation to pay 90% whereof being its contribution in proportion to grant-in-aid sanctioned by State Government in favour of petitioner-institution. Counsel for petitioner-Institution submits that the issue with regard to liability to the extent of contribution as per grant-in- aid sanctioned by State Government, has been considered by this Court in DAV College N.Delhi Vs. Dr. Anil Kr. Bhardwaj (CWP-7439/06 & 11 cognate petitions decided vide common order dt.16/03/07) holding it being obligation of State Government, which was also upheld by Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. DAV College Managing Committee (Special Appeal (Writ)-440/08 & 7 cognate petitions decided vide common order dt.10/09/08). Counsel for employees (respondents herein) submits that once entitlement of their claim as observed by learned Tribunal under its CW 9661/06 //3// order impugned has not been assailed by the institution, at least they cannot be deprived of their legitimate right as regards arrears accrued as a consequent upon revised UGC pay scales for the period in question, which has not been released despite order of the Tribunal in their favour. Government Counsel while opposing the contentions advanced by petitioners' Counsel submits that merely because petitioner- institutions being Govt. aided, grant in-aid cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that apart, in absence of the same being first paid by institutions it cannot be claimed from State Government. Government Counsel further submits that there is no direction of learned Tribunal to the State Government under order impugned; as such no relief can be claimed by petitioner institution in instant petitions while assailing the order of learned Tribunal. I have considered contentions of parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. Entitlement of claim of respective employees for arrears accrued as a consequent upon revised UGC pay scales for the period in question has not been disputed by petitioner- CW 9661/06 //4// institutions; as such the issue in regard to entitlement is not required to be examined by this Court in these petitions. Only question raised for consideration herein before this Court is as to whether petitioner-institutions are entitled for 90% grant-in-aid to the extent of contribution of State Government in respect of claims of employees (respondents) duly allowed by learned Tribunal. At the same time, the issue also raised for consideration that if pay scale stood revised with retrospective effect, can the State Government put restrictions that it will part with their share despite being aided institution from a particular date and not from the date pay scale stood revised. However, this Court in DAV College N.Delhi Vs. Dr. Anil Kr. Bhardwaj (CWP-7439/06 (supra) (which stands upheld by Division Bench in State of Rajasthan Vs. DAV College Managing Committee (Spl App(Writ)-440/08, supra) finally observed that once pay scale stood revised retrospectively, State Government is certainly under obligation to release its contribution to the extent of grant-in-aid to the institution and no arbitrary date could be fixed in releasing its share. CW 9661/06 //5// In the light of what has been observed (supra), such an issue raised in instant petitions is no longer res integra. Once it is a part of pay & allowances, petitioner-institution being 90% Govt. aided, State Government cannot absolve from its liability in parting with its share in terms of grant in-aid duly sanctioned to petitioner institution. Consequently, these writ petitions are partly allowed and while upholding the impugned order dt.30/06/06 Ann.11) of the Tribunal, the respondent-(State Govt.) is directed to release its contribution to the extent of 90% share as grant-in-aid towards arrears of pay & allowances, to which respondents Teachers of petitioner-Institution are entitled for from 01/01/96 to 31/12/2001 under the Scheme of Act & rules framed therein, in pursuance of common order dt.30/06/06 (Ann.11) of the Tribunal. Necessary compliance be made within three months. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.5/9661CW06-1301EdTri(2).doc