2013 (5) TMI 519 - HC - Indian Laws

Salary claim of an employee - release of grant in aid - aided v/s non aided institution - Held that - Appellant-Institution contention that Institution is an aided-Institution but aid has not been released to them after the year 1990 because of non-compliance of certain provisions of Scheme of Rules 1993 and lapses on the part of the appellant-Institution in not complying with the provisions for the purpose of release of Grant-in-Aid, would not affect the category of the appellant-Institution as not being an aided-Institution and in case the aid of the Institution was not released in time, as submitted by the appellant, or withheld by the sanctioning authority in not complying with the provisions of law or procedure provided under the Scheme of Rules 1993 has not been followed, the remedy to an Institution is available of filing appeal against the order of the sanctioning authority u/R.19 of the Scheme of Rules 1993 and such decision of the State Government is final but the appellant has failed to avail the remedy as contemplated under the law and for that purpose the appellant-Institution cannot be forbidden and state that the appellant-institution is not an aided-Institution and as such is not under the obligation to pay such pay and allowances, as contemplated u/S.29 of the Act, as provided for the staff belonging to the similar category in the Government Institutions and this what the learned Single Judge observed in the order impugned dt.24th August, 2005. The submission of counsel for appellant that appellant-Institution is not receiving aid from the State Government may be for reasons whatsoever for the period in question they are not entitled to comply with u/S.29 of the Act is wholly without substance for the reason that once the Institution is categorized as an Aided-Institution, such aided-Institutions are under obligation to make payment of such pay & allowances to the employees of the Institutions which shall not be less than those prescribed for the staff belonging to such categories in the Government Institutions, as provided u/S.29 of the Act. As regards submissions made for issuance of mandamus against State Government for release of Grant-in-Aid to meet out its legal obligation, suffice it to say that the writ petition came to be filed by the appellant in the nature of certiorari jurisdiction u/Art.226 of Constitution assailing the order of Tribunal and if at all their Grant-in-Aid was withheld by the sanctioning authority/State Government in violation of the Scheme of Rules 1993, of which reference has been made above, it is always open for the appellant to avail the remedy which the law permits and this what the learned Single Judge also observed while dealing with the contentions advanced. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of the respondent-employee to full salary as per Section 29 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989.
2. Obligation of the appellant-Institution to pay full salary despite non-receipt of aid from the State Government.
3. The appellant-Institution's failure to appeal against the stoppage of aid by the State Government.
4. Request for mandamus to the State Government for the release of Grant-in-Aid.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement of the respondent-employee to full salary as per Section 29 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989:
The respondent-employee claimed that his salary was unjustifiably reduced to half from November 1994 onwards, despite being entitled to full salary as a teacher in a recognized aided institution. The Tribunal concluded that the respondent-employee's rights could not be deprived due to the institution's financial issues and directed the appellant-Institution to pay the full salary as per Section 29 of the Act, which mandates that the pay and allowances of employees in aided institutions should not be less than those in government institutions.

2. Obligation of the appellant-Institution to pay full salary despite non-receipt of aid from the State Government:
The appellant-Institution argued that due to the State Government withholding 50% of their grant since 1990, they were unable to pay the full salary. However, the Tribunal and the Single Judge held that the institution, being recognized and aided, was still obligated to pay full salary as per Section 29 of the Act. The failure to receive aid did not absolve the institution of its responsibility to pay the employees' salaries as prescribed.

3. The appellant-Institution's failure to appeal against the stoppage of aid by the State Government:
The appellant-Institution admitted that aid was stopped due to lapses by the then Principal in providing necessary documents. Despite rectifying these discrepancies, the aid was not resumed. The court noted that the institution did not appeal against the stoppage of aid as provided under Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Rules, 1993. The failure to utilize the available legal remedy meant the institution could not claim it was not an aided institution or avoid its obligations under Section 29.

4. Request for mandamus to the State Government for the release of Grant-in-Aid:
The appellant-Institution requested the issuance of a mandamus to compel the State Government to release the withheld aid. The court observed that the institution should have pursued the available legal remedies, such as appealing against the stoppage of aid, instead of seeking such relief in the certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226. The court affirmed that the institution's obligation to pay full salary remained, regardless of the aid status.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeals, emphasizing that the appellant-Institution, categorized as an aided institution, was obligated to pay the full salary to its employees as per Section 29 of the Act. The institution's failure to appeal against the aid stoppage and the lack of merit in the arguments presented led to the dismissal of the appeals. The stay granted earlier was also vacated.