1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5915/96 Satya Narain Sharma vs. State & Anr. Date of order : 7/1/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Manish Sharma for the petitioner. Shri Ganesh Meena, Government Counsel for the respondents. ****** Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Satya Narain Sharma way back in the year 1996 with the prayer that respondent-State be directed to pay him his dues towards salary along with interest and compensation. Factual matrix of the case is that petitioner was working on the post of Teacher with Shri Poornanand Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Churu, which was a private institution and was receiving grant-in-aid to the extent of 70% from the State Government under the grant-in-aid Rules of 1963. It is not in dispute that the said institution was taken over by the Government 2 vide order dated 19.10.1989. It is also admitted that the petitioner's services were absorbed in the Government on the post of Teacher Gr.III in the pay scale of 1200-2050 from the date of merger i.e. 2.7.1992. However, the following dues of the petitioner were yet not paid: Rs. -Jan.87 to Feb.92 28,842.00 (70% of the salary – pay fixation in revised pay scales of 1987 and 1989) - Bonus amount from Jan.87 to Feb.92 4,764.00 - Amount deducted from the acquittance roll dated 30.11.92 11,200.00 - Unpaid salary from March 1992 to June 1992 @ Rs.1720/- per month 8,921.00 Total dues Rs.53,727.00” The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the school was taken over by the Government in the year 1989, the Assistant Collector was appointed as Administrator. The petitioner repeatedly raised his demand for making payment of the aforesaid dues. Reference was made to 3 representations dated 25.5.92, 5.8.93, 20.11.94 and 29.12.95. It is contended that the Administrator vide his letter dated 27.5.93 forwarded the bill to Director of Sanskrit Education, Jaipur for making payment of the aforesaid dues of the petitioner, but no action was taken. Shri Ganesh Meena, learned Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that when the institution was taken over by order dated 19.10.1989, it was based on certain conditions and condition no.4 thereof provided that the Government shall not be liable to make payment of any dues of the institution for earlier period. I am afraid the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted in the factual context where the respondents do not deny the fact that the institution was taken over by the government and the petitioner was actually discharging the duties and it was an aided institution receiving grant-in-aid to the extent of 70% from the Government and that the Administrator had already verified the bills and sent them to Director for payment. The 4 legitimate dues of the petitioner in this manner cannot be upheld by the respondents. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to make payment of Rs.53,727/- as referred to above together with interest @ 6% per annum to the petitioner. Compliance of the judgement be made within a period of three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/