CW 9114/06 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** 1-Civil Writ Petition No.9114/2006 Prin. Dayanand College, Ajmer & Anr. Versus Non-Govt. Edu. Inst. Tribunal, Man Singh Ranawat & Ors. 2-Civil Writ Petition No.9115/2006 Prin. Dayanand College, Ajmer & Anr. Versus Non-Govt. Edu. Inst. Tribunal, Indu Bhushan Abrol & Ors. 3-Civil Writ Petition No.9113/2006 Prin. Dayanand College, Ajmer & Anr. Versus Non-Govt. Edu. Inst. Tribunal, Mahendra Pal Tyagi & Ors. 4-Civil Writ Petition No.9849/2006 Prin. Dayanand College, Ajmer & Anr. Versus Non-Govt. Edu. Inst. Tribunal, Yograj Sirohi & Ors. Date of Order ::: 13/01/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mrs Naina Saraf, for petitioners Institute. Mr. JK Agrawal, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for State-respondents Mr. PS Sirohi for respondent (Teachers) At request, since these four petitions involve identical controversy, were heard together and are being disposed of 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 order dt.21/04/06 (Ann.4) passed by Rajasthan Non-Govt. Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (“Tribunal”), whereby applications filed by employees U/s 21 of Rajasthan Non-Govt. Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (“Act, 1989”) for grant of payment of encashment of privilege leave and gratuity were accepted and petitioner-Institute has been CW 9114/06 //2// directed to make payment of their terminal benefits including gratuity & encashment of privilege leave alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date the applicants employees stood retired from service. Employees (respondents herein) after having served in petitioner-institution stood retired from service and their retiral dues particularly as raised in these petitions viz., encashment of privilege leave & payment of gratuity despite being due and payable to them were denied by petitioner-institution, hence they approached the Tribunal by way of their respective applications/appeals U/s 21 of the Act, 1989, wherein State Government was also party-respondent duly represented by their Counsel. However, claim of employees respondents herein were seriously disputed by petitioner institution as well as State Government but after examining inter-se disputes, learned tribunal finally allowed employees' applications vide order dt.21/04/06 (Ann.4) directing petitioner-institution to make payment of gratuity with interest @ 9% per annum and so also for release of encashment of privilege leave to respective employees under law. Counsel for Institution has fairly CW 9114/06 //3// conceded that in the light of Full Bench decision of this Court in S.R. Hr. Secondary School Vs. Rajasthan Non-Govt. Edu. Inst. Tribunal, Jaipur (2002(3) WLC (Raj.) 586), question of entitlement of terminal benefits for respective employees does not hold further consideration and thus Counsel has confined her contention only to the extent that once the institution is 90% government aided and payment of encashment of leave admissible at the time of retirement is a part of salary and being 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-institutions. In support, Counsel placed reliance upon decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court at principal seat Jodhpur in Mahila Mandal Vs. State in CWP-2473/06 & Two cognate petitions decided vide common order dt.25/10/07. Counsel further submits that the issue with regard to liability to the extent of contribution as per grant-in-aid sanctioned by State Government, has also been considered by this Court in DAV College N.Delhi Vs. Dr. Anil Kr. Bhardwaj (CWP-7439/06 & 11 cognate petitions CW 9114/06 //4// 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 and 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 order impugned has not been assailed by institutions, at least they cannot be deprived of their legitimate right as regards encashment of privilege leave or payment of gratuity, 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; as such no relief can be CW 9114/06 //5// claimed by petitioner institution against them 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 their claim with regard to encashment of privilege leave or for payment of gratuity has not been disputed by petitioner- institution; as such such an issue 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-institution is entitled for 90%grant- in-aid to the extent of contribution of State Government in respect of claims of employees (respondents) allowed by learned Tribunal for encashment of privilege leave, which is one of terminal benefits admissible at the time of retirement under law. A co-ordinate bench of this Court at principal Bench Jodhpur in Mahila Mandal Vs. State in CWP-2473/06 (supra) while examining the issue as regards payment towards encashment of privilege leave and taking note of grant-in-aid concerned to the institution finally in its judgment dt.25/10/07 held that it being a part of salary, the institution is CW 9114/06 //6// entitled to claim grant-in-aid from the Government, as has also been observed by Full Bench of this Court in S.R. Hr. Secondary School Vs. Rajasthan Non-Govt. Edu. Inst. Trib. Jaipur (supra), observed ad infra : “Thus, there is a provision for accumulation of privilege leaves. Admittedly, the teachers working in Government educational institutions are entitled for encashment of privilege leave on their retirement. By virtue of S.29 of the Act, the teachers of NGEIs are entitled for the similar scale of pay and allowances except compensatory allowance, it being the part of grant-in- aid, therefore, whatever allowances the teachers of Government educational institutions are entitled to, would also be available to the teachers of NGEIs. Leave encashment is an allowance and the teachers in the NGEIs would have the right to claim this allowance.” In the light of what has been observed (supra), such an issue raised in instant petitions is no longer res integra. Thus once it is held to be a part of salary and 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 CW 9114/06 //7// partly allowed and while upholding the impugned order dt.21/04/06 (Ann.4) of the Tribunal petitioner Institution is directed to comply with order (Ann.4) of the Tribunal within three months and at the same time, State Government is also directed to part with its contribution/ share of 90% grant-in-aid in favour of petitioner-Institution for the claim of respective respondents herein (employees) with regard to encashment of privilege leave. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.7/9114CW06-13JnEdTri(4).doc