1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R S.R. Higher Secondary Versus The State of Rajasthan School, Laxmangarh, & ors. district Sikar & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 997/2005 ... Date of Order: April 02, 2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. M.S. Singhvi, for the petitioner. Mr. B.L. Tiwari, Deputy Govt. Advocate, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to release the grant-in-aid to the petitioners on the amount of arrears of salary paid to their employees from 1-9- 1996 pursuant to the revision of pay scales by the State Government vide the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1998 (for short, “the Rules of 1998” hereinafter) along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date the same became due till the date of payment. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant 2 writ petition are that the petitioners have been receiving the grant-in- aid from the respondent State of Rajasthan to the tune of 70% of their expenditure incurred in regard to the Senior Secondary School and 60% with regard to the Primary School in accordance with the norms and the criteria laid down in the Rules in regard to the expenditure. The petitioner No.1 is a non- Government Educational Institution as defined under Section 2 (p) of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act of 1989” hereinafter). To give effect to the provisions of the Act of 1989, the respondent-State has framed the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-Aid and Service Conditions etc.) Rules, 1993 (for short, “the Rules of 1993” hereinafter). Section 29 of the Act of 1989 makes the provisions for payment of Pay and Allowances , according to which the payment of pay and allowances, except the compensatory allowances, with respect to all the employees of the aided educational institutions shall not be less than those prescribed for the staff belonging to the similar categories in Government institutions. The petitioners came with the case that they are paying to their employees the same pay scales which are admissible to the staff belonging to the similar categories in the Government institutions in conformity with the provisions of Section 29 of the Act of 1989. The Grant-in-Aid is being paid to the petitioner 3 society on the basis of the approved expenditure in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter III of the Rules of 1993. The petitioner society is entitled to receive the recurring grant on the amount of actual salary and allowance paid to the teaching and non-teaching staff as also the provident fund contribution not exceeding 8.33% as per the criteria prescribed in rule 13 read with rule 14 of the Rules of 1993. On revision of the salary effected by the State Government, the petitioner society also revised the pay scales of its employees and paid them the arrears of salary and allowances as per the Rules of 1998. By Annx.1 dated 8-7-1999, the petitioners approached the Chief Accounts Officer of the respondent No.2 the Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner requesting him to release the the grant-in-aid on the amount of arrears of pay and allowances paid by the petitioner society to the employees of Senior Secondary School on revision of the pay scales under the Rules of 1998. A similar letter dated 8-7-1999 (Annx.2) was also sent requesting for payment of grant-in-aid paid by the petitioner society to its employees working in the primary school. However, despite various repeated communications and requests, the respondents failed to release the grant-in-aid. Hence this writ petition. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition stands concluded by a Full Bench decision of this Court 4 in S.R. Senior Secondary School & Anr. Vs. The Rajasthan Non- Government Education Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur and 23 others, 2002 (3) Western Law Cases (Raj.) 586. Learned counsel further submits that Section 29 of the Act of 1989 provides similar pay scales and allowances to the employees of the non-Government Education Institutions at par with the staff belongings to the same category working in Government educational institutions. In the year 1998, the salary of the said employees similarly situated to the staff of the petitioner society has been revised at par which is applicable to the State Government employees in view of the provisions of Section 29 of the Act of 1989 and the petitioner society paid the arrears of salary and allowances to its employees and the same is sought to be released to the petitioners as grant-in-aid. Note VI to rule 14 of the Rules of 1993 provides that that the expenditure which is incurred to meet the liability of any previous year, but included in the expenditure of the current year, on which the grant is based, shall be admissible for the purpose of grant-in-aid only with the prior approval of the State Government. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and stated that as per Note IV to rule 14 of the Rules of 1993, the amount to be paid towards arrears of salary is not included as head of expenditure towards which grant-in-aid is to be 5 granted; however it requires the approval of the State Government. Note IV to rule 14 of the Rules of 1993 provides that save as otherwise provided, no expenditure on repairs of building for which rent is claimed is admissible for grant-in-aid as such, repairs are to be done by the landlord. It is strange as to how Note IV to rule 14 of the Rules of 1993 has been pressed into service by the respondents in their reply, which has no application at all to the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioners have not claimed any expenditure incurred by them on the repairs of the building; on the contrary, the petitioners claim the expenditure which have been incurred by them to meet the liability to pay the previous year's arrears of salary and allowance paid by them to their employees at par with that which is applicable to the similarly situated employees of the State Government. So far as approval of the State Government is concerned, Note VI to rule 14 of the Rules 1993 provides that the expenditure, which is incurred to meet the liabilities of any previous year but included in the expenditure of the current year on which the grant is based, shall be admissible for the purpose of grant-in-aid only with the prior approval of the State Government. There is no impediment for the State Government in according approval for the payment of arrears of salary and allowance paid by the petitioner society to its employees on the 6 revision of the salary under the provisions of the Rules of 1998. The petitioners were required to pay the arrears thereof because they have revised the salary of their employees under the Rules of 1998 and as per the provisions of Section 29 of the Act of 1989, the petitioner society is bound under the law to pay to its employees the salary and allowances at par with the staff/employees belonging to the same category working in Government educational institutions and, therefore, grant-in-aid for the payments made by the petitioners to their employees as arrears of salary and allowances on revision of the salary under the Rules of 1998 are liable to be released by the respondents to them in accordance with law. Therefore, in my view, the petitioners are entitled for receiving the grant-in-aid for the amount of arrears of pay and allowances paid by them to their employees. This Court, in S.R. Higher Secondary School & Anr. Vs. Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur & 23 ors. (supra) held as under:- “Rule 13 (2) speaks of approved expenditure to be arrived at according to these Rules and such other instructions that may be issued from time to time. Rule 13 (2) speaks of categories of the institutions under advise of grant-in-aid committee and to be allowed the grant-in-aid as:- Category- A 80% of the approved expenditure of the previous year plus likely annual increment of staff. 7 B 70% C 60% D 50% Special Category 90% R. 14 (a) included actual salary, and provident fund contribution not exceeding 8.33% in respect of teaching and non-teaching staff, apart from the other approved expenditures as laid down in R.14. “Salary” is defined in S. 2 ( r) of the Act which means the aggregate of the emoluments of an employee including dearness allowance or any other allowance or relief for the time-being payable to him but does not include compensatory allowance. The extended definition of salary provides for aggregate of emoluments received by the teacher which also includes all allowances excluding the compensatory allowance and also extended to the relief for the time being payable to the teacher. The selection scale given to the teacher shall certainly fall within the four corners of the definition of 'salary”. Although, Section 7 of the Act provides that no aid shall be claimed by an institution as a matter of right, once it is decided to grant aid under Section 7 (3) of the Act, the sanctioning authority is to sanction and distribute to a recognised institution aid from time to time in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed. Section 7 (4) of the Act provides that the aid may cover such part of the expenditure of the institution as may be prescribed under Section 7 (3) read with Section 7 (4) makes it clear that the aid which has to be granted to a recognised institution shall cover the estimated expenditure of the current year and the approved expenditure as provided under Rule 14 of the Rules. Once it is decided by the Government to provide grant-in-aid in accordance with Ss. 7 (3) and 7 (4) of the Act it leaves no room for the sanctioning authority to exercise its discretion to grant or not to grant the aid in regard to the items covered under Ss. 7 (3) and 7 (4) of the Act. Selection scale being salary, once the State Government has decided to grant aid to an NGEI, it will form the part of grant-in- aid and thus the State Government in the eventuality 8 of sanctioning the grant, will pay for the same in accordance with the percentage prescribed to the category in which the NGEIs is places.” In view of the aforesaid Full Bench decision of this Court, in my view, the writ petition deserves to succeed. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to accord approval and release the grant-in-aid to the petitioners on the expenditure incurred by them on account of payment of salary and allowances to their employees from 1-9-1996 pursuant to the revision of pay scales by the State Government under the Rules of 1998. This exercise be completed within three months. There shall be no order as to costs. (H.R. PANWAR), J. mcs