An application under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989, is maintainable even if there is a delay in filing it, provided the grievance is a continuing wrong.

ORDER :

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned judgment dated 03.02.2010 passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (for short “the Tribunal”) by which application filed by respondent no. 1 under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”) has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to fix the pay scale of the respondent under the pay scale of 8000-13500 w.e.f. 01.09.1996 under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules 1998 (for short “Rules of 1998”) with arrears. Further a direction has been issued to pay UGC senior pay scale as well as selection scale in terms of schemes and payment of privilege leaves along with interest @ 6% p.a. with effect from the date of filing the application and other directions have also been issued.

2. The petitioner is a philanthropic institution and the respondent was appointed as Librarian on 15.10.1975 by the petitioner college. The respondent retired from the said post on 31.10.2002 after attaining the age of superannuation. He submitted an application under Section 21 of the Act which has been partly allowed by the Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated 03.02.2010.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent was treated as ineligible on the post of Librarian by the Director, College Education vide order dated 04.04.1994 and the said order was never challenged by the respondent. Counsel submits that the application filed by the respondent under Section 21 of the Act was not maintainable in view of Sections 18 and 19 of the Act. The respondent could have filed appeal under Section 19 and the limitation was 30 days but instead of filing appeal, the respondent has submitted application under Section 21 after lapse of the period of limitation. Counsel submits that otherwise also the respondent retired on 31.10.2002 but he filed time barred application. Counsel submits that though no limitation period is prescribed under the Act but the limitation period was three years under Article 137 of the Limitation Act and the application has been filed by the respondent after three years. Counsel submits that no opportunity of cross-examination was provided to the petitioner and the provision contained under Section 25 of the Act was not followed which has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Tagore Bal Niketan Madhyamik Vidyalaya vs. State of Rajasthan, 2018 (1) WLC (Raj) 19. Counsel submits that no calculation has been done by the Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment, hence it would not be possible for the petitioner to calculate the amount awarded by the Tribunal.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that no order under Section 18 of the Act was passed by the petitioner/institution, hence no appeal under Section 19 was maintainable. Counsel submits that for redressal of the grievance of the respondent, the only remedy was to file an application under Section 21 of the Act. Counsel submits that the respondent was raising his grievance to the petitioner by filing repeated representations. When no heed was paid, then he approached the Tribunal and submitted the application under Section 21 of the act, which has been rightly allowed. Counsel submits that there is no force in the argument that the respondent was not eligible for appointment on the post of Librarian because the Director, College Education has said so in the year 1994. Counsel submits that the respondent worked on the said post w.e.f. 15.10.1975 to 31.10.2002. Counsel submits that the services of the respondent remained unblemished during this period and whole salary and retiral dues were paid to him at the time of his retirement. Counsel submits that when the benefit