Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SOHAN LAL SINGHAL versus STATE (EDUCATION DEPTT.)

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SOHAN LAL SINGHAL v STATE (EDUCATION DEPTT.) - CW Case No. 227 of 1996 [2005] RD-RJ 1093 (31 May 2005)

CWP 227/96 //1//

Civil Writ Petition No.227/96

Sohanlal Singhal Vs. State & Ors.

Date of Order ::: 31/05/2005

Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ajay Rastogi

Mr.C.L.Saini for petitioner

Mr.B.K.Sharma, Dy.Govt.Advocate for the State

Petitioner, who was working as Principal and retired from Non-Government Aided Educational

Institution, has claimed parity of pensionary benefits as admissible to employees of State

Government.

Initially, petitioner joined service on 30/08/65 as Principal in Shri Chirawa Senior

Secondary School, Chirawa, which is Non-Government aided educational institution. On completion of 29 years' services, he retired on 31/07/94 and was paid a sum ofRs.2,96,074/- on 01/08/94 & 09/11/95 towards provident fund benefits, to which he was entitled for under the Rules.

Petitioner pleaded in his petition that in view of decision of this Court in Prakash Chaturvedi

Vs. State of Rajasthan (SB CWP No.5447/92 decided on 09/02/93) (Ann.3), respondents were under obligation to frame pension rules by extending terminal benefits to employees of Non-Government aided educational institution.

Respondents in their reply have submitted that in view of aforesaid decision, to protect rights of employees of recognized educational

CWP 227/96 //2// institutions, the Rajasthan Non-Government

Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-aid & Service Conditions etc.) Rules, 1993 ('Rules, 1993') has been promulgated with effect from 01/04/93 in exercise of powers conferred by S.43 of

Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions

Act, 1989 ('Act,1989'). According to respondents, petitioner is only entitled for benefits which are extended to employees of aided educational institutions being covered under the Act, 1989 & its

Rules; and as per existing provisions of the Act, 1989, there is no statutory provision, which grants pensionary benefits to the employees/teachers of the recognized educational institutions, and S.16 of

Act, 1989 confers power upon State Government to regulate terms & conditions of employees of aided institutions.

Shri B.K.Sharma Dy.Govt. Advocate for

State urged that in the absence of any provisions made in the Act, 1989 & its Rules, 1993, employees of aided educational institutions are not entitled for pensionary benefits.

Having considered contentions of both the parties and perused material on record, I find that this facts remained undisputed that petitioner retired from service from aided educational institution and whatever retiral benefits which he was entitled for, and admissible to employees of aided educational institutions under Grand-in-aid

Rules, 1963, were extended to petitioner and after the Act, 1989 came into force, service conditions of

CWP 227/96 //3// employees & teachers of Non-Government Educational institutions were protected but there is no provision for grant of pension to such employees.

S.29 read with S.34 of the Act, 1989 only provide for pay & allowances admissible to such employees of

Non-Government educational institutions, equal to what is admissible to employees of State Government.

In the absence of any provisions in the Act,1989 or its Rules, 1993, in my opinion, no direction can be issued to the State Government to grant pension to retired employees of Non-Government aided educational institutions. That apart, whatever benefits due to petitioner were already paid to him under provident fund scheme admissible as he was not holding pensionable post and in the absence of provision to the effect, no parity with employees of

State Government can be claimed, in so far as it relates to payment of retiral benefits, particularly pension.

Decision of Apex Court in K.Krishnamachar yulu Vs. Sri V.H.College of Engineering (1997(3) SCC 571) does not help the petitioner because in that case, parity in pay scales with employees of

Government institutions was claimed by employees of non-aided private educational institution on the basis of Government instructions which entitled pay scale equal to their counter parts in government institutions and that apart, Management of the

College was already paying salaries on a parity with government employee, whereas in present case, there

CWP 227/96 //4// has been no such Government instructions and contrarily service conditions of employees of Non-

Government aided Educational institutions like petitioner are regulated by promulgation of the Act, 1989 and Rules, 1993 framed thereunder. Further, since at relevant point of time, services conditions of Non-Government aided educational institutions were governed by Grant in-aid Rules, 1963, and service conditions of employees/teachers are now protected under present legislation (supra), wherein no provisions for grant of pension to employees of aided educational institutions have been envisaged.

In this view of legislative intent, no mandamus can be issued.

Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

(Ajay Rastogi), J.

K.Khatri/227.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.