SBCWP NO.617/2008. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.617/2008. Shri Sanatan Dharam Shastri Sanskrit Mahavidhayalaya Vs. Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) Lalsot, District Dausa & Ors. Date of order :- 25/1/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Shri Sanjeev Prakash Sharma for the petitioner. Shri O.P. Mishra for the respondents. **** The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 7/1/2008 as well as 15/12/2006. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that they are not liable to pay benefit of Selection Scale to the employee beyond their share. It has been stated that they are getting 90% grant-in-aid from the State of Rajasthan thus; petitioner’s contribution in the salary and other benefits is only to the extent of 10%. Thus, for grant of benefit of Selection Scale, the employee has already been given amount to the extent it was payable by the petitioner institution i.e. 10% of the total arrears. It has been further submitted that remaining 90% amount has to be paid by the government and thus, no direction should have been given for payment of entire dues against the petitioner. In that regard, judgment of the Full Bench has been referred reported in W.L.C. (Raj.) 2002(3) 586 SBCWP NO.617/2008. 2 and specifically paras 19 & 20 were referred to show that Full Bench has given direction to the State Government for making payment of such benefits. Learned counsel for the respondents has disputed this position and submitted that no direction has been given by the Full Bench to the effect as indicated above, in fact what has been said therein is that educational institution would be entitled for grant of benefit of grant-in-aid even in respect of the payment of Selection Scale to the employees but in the aforesaid judgment it has nowhere provided that even the employee would be paid benefit directly by the State Government more so when benefit of grant-in-aid is directly received by the institution and not by the employee then, entire payment has to be made by the institution first. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however referred Ann.8 to show that government itself has issued an order clarifying that out of total amount payable to the institution, a sum of Rs.3,55,826/- payable to the non-petitioner may be kept separately and a draft of remaining amount of Rs.2,29,046/- should be given to the petitioner-institution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that let the aforesaid amount of draft be given to the non-petitioner in satisfaction of the execution after deducting a sum of Rs.6177/-. Now, taking note of entire circumstances, it would be proper to direct the respondents-Government to release the amount of Rs.349649 (355826-6177) in favour of the non-petitioner employee as agreed to by the counsel for petitioner. The present order has been passed in the peculiar facts of the case and with the aforesaid order, SBCWP NO.617/2008. 3 entire controversy between the parties would be settled finally and in view of above, the bank account of the petitioner attached with the respondents would be released. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (M.N. BHANDARI), J. anil