Employee Of Aided Schools Can Directly Recover Grant In Aid From The State Government : Rajasthan High Court
Namdev Singh
20 Dec 2024 9:54 AM IST
A single judge bench of the Rajasthan High Court, comprising of Justice Sudesh Bansal held that the grant-in-aid can be sanctioned and paid directly by the State Government to the employees of the aided educational institutions.
Background Facts
The petitioner was an aided institution where respondent-Employee was appointed on a sanctioned and aided post. The Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Tribunal, Jaipur directed that for employee's dues against pay & allowances, arrears of salary on revision of pay-scale and grant of selection grades, leave encashment etc., the Institution was liable to pay 20% and the remaining 80% was to be borne by the State Government, being the amount of grant-in-aid. The payment dues were not paid, therefore employee claimed the total due amount as well as the interest on the belated amount. Aggrieved by the same, the Institution filed the writ petition.
It was contended by the Institution that they were not liable to pay the interest on belated dues as due drawn statement for 80% payment in respect of each Employee was submitted before the State Government way back in the year 2016-17. Thereafter, the State Government had to verify the same and release the legal admissible dues of the employees against the grant-in-aid. Hence delay in release of 80% of dues was on the part of State Government, therefore the interest has to be paid by the State Government.
On the other hand it was contended by the Employee that share of 20% of the dues, to be paid by the Institution was belated, hence the Institution was liable to pay the interest on the belated period. Further employee requested that in respect of remaining 80% of the dues, the amount may be permitted to be recovered directly from the State Government. Employee claimed interest on the delayed payment against the Institution as well as the State Government, whosoever was liable for the delay. Further, for the gratuity amount, employee confined their claim against the Institution only.
Whereas it was contended by the Government of Rajasthan that even though the Institution, being an aided institution, is covered under the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Act, 1989 and the 1993 Rules, yet it is under legal obligation to prepare and send due drawn statement to the State Government, in respect of each Employee, which was not done. Hence, the State Government was not liable to pay the due amount directly to the Employee. It was further contended that as State Government was not responsible for delay, therefore, it cannot be held responsible for payment of interest.
Findings of the Court
The case of State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. The Management Committee Sh. Bhagwan Das Todi College was relied upon by the court wherein the Division Bench held that the grant-in-aid can be sanctioned and paid directly by the State Government to the employees of the aided educational institutions in the light of Section 31(2) of the Act of 1989.
It was held by the court that the Employee was entitled to recover their dues directly from the State Government in a ratio of 80%. It was further held by the Court that for the 20% of dues, interest on the delayed payment was to be borne by the Institution only.
Further it was observed by the court that in respect of the liability to pay the interest on the remaining 80% dues of the Employee, it depends on the point whether the due drawn statement in respect of the employee had been prepared and forwarded by the Institution to the State Government in the year 2016-17. Therefore it has to be decided and determined by the executing Court, having considered the aspect that who was responsible for the delay.
It was further held by the court that the Institution has liability to pay the due gratuity to Employee. The employee was entitled for gratuity in terms of Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution (Recognition, Grant-in-Aid and Service Conditions Etc.) Rules, 1993 as admissible under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 from Institution. Since gratuity does not fall under “approved expenditure”, the State Government was not liable to provide the grant-in-aid towards the amount of gratuity.
Therefore the judgment passed by the tribunal was affirmed by the court. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was disposed of.
Case No. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10864/2024
Counsel for the Petitioners : Sandeep Pathak
Counsel for the Respondents : Namita Parihar, Dy. GC; Rajat Ranjan;
