IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Jiya Lal Institute of Education Vs. Chandra Prakash Bafna & Ors. (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.11855/2010) S. B. Civil Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 3-8-2010 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer South, Ajmer in Application filed under Order 21 Rule 23 read with Sec.151 CPC in Execution No.19/2006. Date of Judgment: August 26, 2010 PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Chauhan Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, for the petitioner. Mr. S. K. Saksena, for the respondent. BY THE COURT: Aggrieved by the order dated 3-8-2010, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate Ajmer South, Ajmer, whereby the learned Civil Judge has dismissed an application filed under Order 21 Rule 23 read with Section 151 CPC in execution proceedings, the petitioner has challenged the same before this court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent, Chandra Prakash Bafna had filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institution Tribunal against the petitioner Institute. In the appeal, he claimed that he had worked for the Institute from 15-7-1996 to 31-1-2003. According to him he retired from the Institute on 31-1-2003. Furthermore, according to him, since the Institute did not pay his D.A., Gratuity, encashment of leave, and pension after his retirement, he was constrained to file the said appeal. The petitioner Institute submitted its written statement and denied the averments made in the appeal. After hearing both the parties, vide judgment dated 12-1-2006, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal: it ordered that if any encashment of leave is due, then the same should be paid. Moreover, if there is any due of dearness allowance, then the same should also be paid. Furthermore, the benefit of Fifth Pay Commission should be given. Lastly, that the respondent should also be given the benefit of 9, 18, 27 years of service. However, it directed that gratuity and pension need not be paid to the employee. 3. Since both the parties were aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal dated 12-1-2006, both the parties have filed their respective appeals by way of writ petitions before this Court. While the petitioner Institute has filed the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9789/2007, the respondent has filed the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1046/2006. Both the parties are ad idem that both the writ petitions are still pending before this Court. 4. Meanwhile, the respondent has initiated execution proceeding before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ajmer South, Ajmer. Raising certain objections, specially with regard to jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear the respondent's appeal, the petitioner filed its objection under Order 21 Rule 23 read with Section 151 CPC before the Executing Court. According to the petitioner, its Institute is a Non- aided, Non-government Educational Institute. Further, according to the petitioner, the learned Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear the application/ appeal from an employee, who has been employed in recognised, but non-aided Non-government Educational Institution. Therefore, the learned Tribunal had passed a judgment beyond its jurisdiction. Thus, the decree cannot be implemented by the Executing Court. However, vide order dated 3-8-2010, the learned Judge has dismissed the said objection. Hence, the present writ petition before this court. 5. Reiterating the same contentions before this court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Tribunal has passed a decree which is nullity in the eyes of law. However, without giving any cogent reasons, the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Civil Judge has caused grave injustice to the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Saksena, the learned counsel for the respondent, has contended that the issue whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to try cases of those employees who are employed by non-aided institutions or not, the said issue stands settled by a judgment of this Court. According to the petitioner, relying upon the cases of the Managing Committee, S.S. Jain Subodh Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur & Anr. V/s. Rajendra Kumar Rao & Ors. [2005 (4) WLC 262] and Badhir Bal Vikas Samiti Bhilwara & Anr. V/s. the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur [2004 (2) WLC 57], the learned Judge had correctly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Moreover, against the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal, both the parties have filed their writ petition before this Court. Thus, the petitioner have already filed a writ petition before this Court, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1046/2006 titled as Jiyalal Institute V/s. State of Rajasthan & Anr. The said writ petition is still pending before this Court. Even after hearing the petitioner, in that case, this Court has not granted a stay against the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Tribunal. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the learned Judge was justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 8. A bare perusal of the order clearly reveals that while dealing with the issue of jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the learned Judge has noticed two judgments pronounced by this Court namely, the Managing Committee, S.S. Jain Subodh Shiksha Samiti Jaipur (supra) and Badhir Bal Vikas Samiti (supra). Therefore, according to the learned Judge, the learned Tribunal certainly had jurisdiction to hear the cases filed by an employee of non-aided, non-government educational institution, as held by this Court in the above mentioned cases. Hence, the learned Judge was certainly justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. 9. Being devoid of any merit, this petition is, hereby, dismissed. ( R.S. CHAUHAN ) J. arn