1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Shri Krishna Uchh Prathmik Vidhyalaya Vs. Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur & Ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 983/2005 Date of Order : : 17/02/2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, for the petitioner. Mr. Hemant Chaudhary, Govt. Counsel for respondent State. Mr. D.K.Gaur for the respondent. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order Annex.3 dated 29.11.1999 (Annex.3) passed by the respondent No.3 and the execution proceedings in case No.24/04 pending before respondent No.5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The contention of the writ petitioner is that the respondent State is under legal obligation to provide grant-in-aid 2 in respect of amount of gratuity to the employees of the petitioner Institution. Mr. Hemant Chaudhary, Govt. Counsel appearing for the respondent State as also counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 submit that the controversy is no more res integra in view of the recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan Welfare Society Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2005 SC 2066 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the educational institution is not entitled to include the proportionate amount of gratuity in the approved expenditure for the purpose of computation of grant-in-aid as per Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-Aid and Service Conditions etc.) Rules (1993) framed under S. 43 of Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Act (1989). Section 7 of the Act stipulates that no aid can be claimed as a matter of right and the aid may cover such part of the expenditure of the institution as may be prescribed. The prescribed expenditure is as contained in the Rules. Under R. 14, the approved expenditure can relate to only items from (a) to (v) mentioned therein. It is nobody's case that the expenditure on gratuity falls under item (b) to (v). Under item (a) only expenditure on actual salary and provident fund contribution not exceeding 8.33% in respect of teaching and non-teaching staff can be included. The plea that the gratuity is part of salary, is 3 unsustainable. The amount to be paid as a gratuity in terms of S.4 of the Gratuity Act, under no circumstances, can be said to be a part of 'actual salary' as postulated by R.14. Further, some of the items (b) to (v), wherever recurring or non-recurring expenditure is to form part of approved expenditure, specifically provide for it. Admittedly, the expenditure on gratuity does not fall under items (b) to (v) as the only contention urged was that it falls under R. 14 (a). The position becomes further clear on a plain reading of Note 2 appended to R. 14. It is clear that ordinarily the charges on account of payment of gratuity paid to former teachers are not admitted for the purpose of grant-in-aid unless the Rules on the subject are approved by the Government. The words 'the rules on the subject' in Note 2 cannot be interpreted to mean rule contained in other part of the Rules, namely R. 82. It cannot be said that R.82 would be the rule on the subject approved by the Government. If R.82 is to be interpreted as a rule approved by the Government to contribute the amount of gratuity while computing grant-in-aid, the question of appending Note 2 would not have arisen. Clearly, Note 2 refers to Rule framed by Non-Government Educational Institutions which are to be approved by the Government and not the Government itself making the Rules and approving the same. Rule 82 only makes it obligatory for aided educational institutions to pay gratuity to their employees in accordance with 4 Gratuity Act. Further gratuity cannot be included in the approved expenditure as under R.9 the State Government can sanction the grants under four Heads provided therein and grauity does not fall under any one of them. On these premises it has been held that the gratuity within the meaning of the Act and the Rules cannot form part of recurring grant. It is not includable as part of approved expenditure for the purpose of computing the amount of grant payable to the appellant and accordingly the communication of the Government of Rajasthan to the effect that the Rules do not provide for grant-in-aid on amount of gratuity, the same being not included in the approved expenditure, was held to be not illegal. In view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred herein above, in my view, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief prayed for and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. Ad- interim stay order is vacated and stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R. PANWAR), J. rp