SBCWP NO.1358/03. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3687/2001. Kiran Shiksha Vikas Samiti, Jaipur Versus Saroj Sharma & Ors. Date of Order : 8/7/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri M.S. Gupta for the petitioner. Shri Sandeep Saxena for the respondents. **** BY THE COURT:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) This writ petition seeks to challenge the judgment of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur dated 7/4/2001. The petitioner institution by the aforesaid judgment was required to pay to respondent No.1 the minimum of pay scale along with usual allowances in the light of the government circular dated 22/2/1995. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the cirular which has been issued by the government in fact pertains to untrained Teachers working in the educational institutions of the Panchayat Raj Department and not Education Department of the State Government and, therefore, such circular could not be applied to the case of respondent No.1. Learned counsel further argued that a distinction between trained and untrained Teacher has been judicially recognised by acting on the decision of the SBCWP NO.1358/03. 2 Supreme Court. In order to buttress this argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgments of Supreme Court in State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Bihar State & Ors. : AIR 2007 SC 1948, State of Rajasthan Vs. Gopi Kishan Sen : SLR 1992(6) 726 and Secretary of State Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and ors. : AIR 2006 SC 1806. It was furthermore submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-institution in any case has ceased to receive to receive grant-in-aid from the respondent- State w.e.f. 1/4/2000 and, therefore, the provision on which the Tribunal relied on while deciding the matter in terms of the circular dated 22/2/1995 cannot be applied to the petitioner after that date. 4) Shri Sandeep Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and argued that the Tribunal has rightly granted the same scale of pay and allowances as is admissible to the employees working in the government schools in which the provisions contained in Section 29 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short, the “Act of 1989”) and Rule 34 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, grant-in-aid and service condition etc.) Rules, 1993 (for short, the “Rules of 1993”) are applicable to the employees. It was argued that even if the circular dated 22/2/1995, referred to above, has been issued by the Panchayat Raj Department, nevertheles deals with the case of identically situate untrained Teachers employed in the government schools and provisions of Section 29 of the Act of 1989 and Rule 34 of the Rules SBCWP NO.1358/03. 3 of 1993 supra clearly provide that teachers working in Panchayat Raj institutions shall be paid scale of pay and allowances except compensatory allowances with respect to all employees of unaided institutions not less than those prescribed for similar categories of government instructions. It was argued that the judgments of Supreme Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts. The Tribunal did not err in law in allowing the application as schools referred to in the government circular are necessarily the government schools and untrained teachers working in such schools have been allowed by the government minimum of the pay scale and allowances. 5) A perusal of the impugned-judgment reveals that the Tribunal referred to Setion 29 and Rule 34 of the Act and Rules, respectively and found that respndent No.1 who was untrained teacher was appointed with the petitioner on 2/12/1985. Tribunal further found that the aforesaid Section 29 required that the teachers working in the aided institutions are liable to be paid the scales of pay and allowances except compensatory allowances at par to that of the teachers appointed in the government institutions of similar categories. Judgments on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable because the provisions like one which was there before the Tribunal was not considered by those judgments. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Gopi Kishan Sen supra, what was held was that fixed rate of pay to untrained teachers under a special provision of law, SBCWP NO.1358/03. 4 special provision to prevail over general rules but in the present case, no such special provision has been stated. The general provision as contained in Section 29 would equally apply to the teachers working in an aided institution but SBCWP NO.1358/03. 5 (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil/-