The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of teachers in aided private educational institutions to the benefit of leave encashment on a par with employees of government institutions, emphasizing the intention to maintain parity in service conditions.

ORDER

1. Delay condoned and leave granted in SLP (C) No. 10499 of 2004.

2. The judgment rendered by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Tribunal came up for consideration before a Full Bench of the High Court. The questions that were considered by the Full Bench are as under:

"(1) whether the teachers of non-government educational institutions (for short NGEls) who are receiving grant-in-aid under the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short the Act) read with the Rules framed thereunder, namely, the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-Aid and Service Conditions etc.) Rules, 1993 (for short the Rules), are entitled to selection scale as given to the employees/teachers serving in government educational institutions by virtue of the circular/order dated 25-1-1992;

(2) whether the Government is bound to give grant-in-aid for selection of the teachers of NGEls receiving aid; and

(3) whether the teachers of NGEls receiving aid are entitled to leave encashment benefits after retirement under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder."

3. By the impugned judgment, the aforesaid questions have been answered in favour of teachers of non-government educational institutions (for short "NGEls"). In the present cases, we are concerned with aided non-government educational institutions. These institutions are governed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short "the Act") and the Rules framed thereunder. The correctness of the impugned judgment in respect of the first two questions has been challenged mainly by a the State of Rajasthan. In one civil appeal (CA No. 9394 of 2003), it was also sought to be challenged by the management.

4. On 18-8-2004, on a submission made that there has been a change of counsel for the State of Rajasthan, the cases were adjourned for a period of two weeks so that necessary alternative arrangements could be made. The cases are listed as first item today. A request made yesterday for adjournment was not entertained. It was repeated again today. It can be noticed that although the matters were adjourned for two weeks, in fact, they have come up for hearing about four weeks later. Various counsel are appearing in these matters. The decision by the Tribunal was rendered more than five years ago. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan submits that the State Government has neither given any instructions nor any file or papers to him c and as such it is not possible to make any submission assailing the impugned judgment of the Full Bench. Learned counsel for the appellant in CA No. 9394 of 2003 has also failed to make any submission in support of the said appeal. Submissions have only been made on behalf of teachers and managements of schools in relation to Question (3). Therefore, we are left to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment to the extent of the d answer to the third question in the light of the said submissions.

5. On the third question in relation to entitlement for leave encashment benefit, the Full Bench has held that by virtue of Section 29 of the Act, the teachers of NGEls are entitled to a similar benefit as is allowed to the teachers of government educational institutions. It has been held that whatever allowance the teachers of government educational institutions are e entitled to, would also be available to the teachers of NGEls. In the opinion of the Full Bench, leave encashment is an "allowance" and the teachers in NGEls would have the right to claim this allowance.

6. Mr Rupinder Suri and Mr Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing in civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 10499 of 2004 and Civil Appeals Nos. 9388-94 of 2003 respectively, assailing the correctness of the f aforesaid view, have contended that leave encashment is not an "allowance" within the meaning of Section 29 of the Act and to that extent, learned counsel submit the impugned judgment deserves to