Mohd. Rafiq, J.—The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the prayer that the order passed by the respondents dt. 16.09.2002 whereby the respondents Lachoo Memorial College of Science & Technology (in short “the College”) denied the payment of gratuity and leave encashment to him be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to pay him the aforesaid benefits together with interest on delayed payment.

2. Shri Kuldeep Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was appointed with the said college on the post of lecturer in the year 1965 wherefrom he was relieved by the management committee of the said college on 21.08.1991 on account of his appointment as Chairman of the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer. The order dt. 31.08.1991 by which he was relieved stated that his lien would be maintained with the college for one year which was extended lastly by order dt. 21.12.1992 whereby it was stated that the lien of the petitioner would stand terminated w.e.f. 31.10.1992 because the petitioner has left the services of the college from 01.09.1991. According to the petitioner, the said college was recognized Institutions and was receiving regular grant in aid from the State Government. The State Legislature enacted Rajasthan Non-Government Education Institution Act, 1989 (in short “the Act of 1989”). The State of Rajasthan in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec. 43 framed the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant in Aid and Service Conditions etc.) Rules, 1993 (in short “the Rules of 1993”). As per Rule 82 of the Rules of 1993, the employees of the aided non-government educational Institutions are entitled for gratuity. The petitioner after his retirement from the services of respondent No.3, submitted a representation to the Managing Committee requesting them to make payment of his gratuity under rule 82 of the Rules of 1993 and also for payment of leave encashment. The respondent college however by order dt. 16.09.2002 declined to extend the aforesaid benefits which order is under challenge in the present proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument has relied upon the judgment of this Court as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court such as (l) Smt. Pawan Bhargava vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2002 WLC (Raj.) UC 765, (ii) Brahmchari Madhymik Vidyalaya Alwar vs. Raj. Non Government Educational Institutions Tribunal Jaipur & Ors., 2005(4) WLC (Raj) 401, (iii) S.R. Higher Secondary School & Anr.vs. Raj., Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur & 23 Ors., 2002(3) WLC (Raj.) 586 and (iv) Rajasthan Welfare Society vs. State of Rajasthan, JT 2005(4) SC 163.

3. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing reply. They have raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition filed by the petitioner suffers from delay and laches. While the petitioner relieved from their service on 31.10.1991, he already stood appointed as Chairman of the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer w.e.f. 31.08.1991. He did not claim payment of gratuity till 2002 and the writ petition was filed enormously delayed in the year 2003. The writ petition therefore suffers from delay and laches. On merits, the respondents submitted that the Act of 1989 came into force w.e.f. 01.01.1993 while the petitioner stood retired much prior to that on 31.10.1992. Even if the age of superannuation of the petitioner is taken as the basis, he superannuated on 31.10.1992 whereas the Act came into force w.e.f. 01.01.1993. In these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under the Act of 1989. It has been stated that petitioner is not entitled to benefit of gratuity and leave encashment as per the Rules of 1993 or other benefits which were admissible to him have already been paid.

4. I have considered the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. A coordinate

Click Here to Read the rest of this document