The court held that the petitioner-institution is liable to pay gratuity and leave encashment to respondent-employees for their service period, as per the applicable rules and acts.

ORDER :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in all these writ petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel for the parties, these matters are taken up together for final disposal and are being decided by this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the prayer mentioned in SB Civil Writ Petition No.22528/2017 has been taken into consideration, which reads as under:-

“It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the relevant record from the Tribunal, examine the same and quash and set aside the judgment and award arrived at vide Annexure-1.

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case as also in the interest of justice be also passed in favour of the petitioner.

Cost of this writ petition so also before the Tribunal be also allowed in favour of the petitioner.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-employees were working on different posts with the petitioner-institution, prior to the enforcement of the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2010”) and, thereafter, their services were absorbed in the Government services and all the respondents were relieved on 30.06.2011. Learned counsel submits that the respondents approached the Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) by way of filing an application under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1989”) with multiple prayers; e.g. for grant of payment of leave encashment, gratuity, due salary, etc. Learned counsel submits that no specific affidavit with regard to the exact amount was furnished by the respondents and, in absence thereof, the petitioner could not get any opportunity to cross-examine the respondents. Learned counsel submits that without following the due procedure, contained under the Code of Civil Procedure, the order impugned has been passed by which the petitioner- institution has been directed to pay the aforesaid amount under different heads to the respondents. Learned counsel submits that the respondents are still in service and an employee whether working in a private institution or Government institution is entitled to get encashment of total 300 Privilege Leaves at the time of retirement. Learned counsel submits that unless and until the respondents retire from service, their Privilege Leaves cannot be counted and the respondents cannot claim the benefit of 300 paid leaves from the petitioner as well as the State. Learned counsel further submits that the gratuity amount is always payable to an employee after his retirement and till date, the respondents are serving with the Government and as such their gratuity amount cannot be calculated. Lastly, he argued that the gratuity amount has not been calculated by the Tribunal because no specific affidavit has been submitted by the petitioner- institution in this regard and consequently, no such affidavit was submitted by the respondents, hence the petitioner has been deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the respondents.

4. Lastly, he argued that as per the provisions contained under Section 21 of the Act of 1989, whenever there is a dispute between the management and its employees with respect to any service condition, an application can be submitted in the “prescribed manner” to the Tribunal for adjudication of the same. Learned counsel submits that no applicati