BHOPALWALA ARYA HIGHER SEC.MG.COMMIT. vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. - 2024-01-11

O R D E R

Civil Appeal No.6457/2016 (Item No.101.4)

None is present for the appellant.

Civil Appeals No.6453, 6454 and 6455/2016 (Items No.101, 101.1, 101.2)

1. On the last date of hearing, at the request of the learned counsel for the appellant who had submitted that the arguing counsel was abroad and was expected to return on the same day in the evening, the matter was deferred for today. Today, yet again a request for adjournment is made on the ground that Mr. Manoj Prasad, Advocate will be landing in India only today.

2. For the last time, the appellant is accommodated and the matters are directed to be listed on 21st February, 2024, high up on the Board.

Civil Appeal No.6456/2016 (Item No.101.3)

1 The appellant-Samiti is aggrieved by the judgment dated 18th July, 2011, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jodhpur, whereby the appeal preferred by it against the judgment dated 07th November, 2006 was dismissed in view of the observations made in the lead matter i.e. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.314 of 2005 titled “Bhopalwala Arya Higher Secondary Managing Committee vs.

State of Rajasthan and Ors.”

2. The first plea taken by Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, learned counsel appearing for the appellant to assail the impugned judgment is that even during the course of inspection conducted by the respondent No.4, it was found that only 19 incumbents were employed in the appellant school and on that ground alone, the ESI Act could not have been extended to apply to the appellant school. He further states that merely because both, the upper primary School run by a separate Managing Committee and the appellant school comprising of a middle and a high school are situated in the common premises would not be a ground to club the number of employees of both the institutions for the purposes of extending the Act to the appellant-Samiti.

3. The documents placed on record do not demonstrate the number of students studying in the appellant’s school and those in the Pragati Vidya Niketan, Middle School nor does it indicate the details regarding the affiliation of the two schools as granted by the Department of Education, State of Rajasthan, the permissible intake of both the schools, the number of teachers employed in both the schools, the audited accounts of the schools, the manner of funding of the two schools etc. that would throw light on the issue raised herein.

4. We deem it appropriate to direct the appellant to file all the relevant documents in this regard on an affidavit within three weeks with a copy to the other side.

5. The respondents shall also take note of the aforesaid observations and respond to the affidavit directed to be filed by the appellant within two weeks thereafter.

6. List on on 21st February, 2024, high up on the Board.

(Geeta Ahuja) (Nand Kishor )

Assistant Registrar-cum-PS Court Master (NSH )