JUDGMENT 1. 1.The question involved in this petition is whether a teacher employed in a recognised aided private school in the State of Rajasthan is entitled to the pay scale which is paid to his counter parts in the Government schools? 2. It is no more in dispute that recognised aided schools in the State of Rajasthan have the same teaching syllabus and curriculum. The text books are prescribed and courses of teaching are decided either as per Government directions or by statutory educational Boards and Universities. The students of Government schools and private schools prepare for and appear in the same examination. Qualification of the teachers are also prescribed by the State Government or the statutory educational Boards or Universities. In order to have parity in employment between the teachers or recognised aided private schools and the Government schools, the demand of equal pay scales to the aided private school teachers was being agitated since long. This question was raised for the first time before the Apex Court in Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh v. State of Haryana and ors (1988) 4 SCC 571 . In this case it was held that there was no reason for discrimination between the teachers employed in aided schools and those employed in Government schools. For the salaries and dearness allowances a direction was given to the State Government to take up the question with the Management of the aided schools for bringing about parity in their pay scales and prepare schemes in this connection. The matter was again agitated by Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh before the Supreme Court for seeking implementation of the directions given in the above judgment and the Supreme Court gave the following directions with regard to implementation of the judgment. (see Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh v. State of Haryana (1990) Suppl. SCC 306 . The matter was again agitated by Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh before the Supreme Court for seeking implementation of the directions given in the above judgment and the Supreme Court gave the following directions with regard to implementation of the judgment. (see Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh v. State of Haryana (1990) Suppl. SCC 306 . (i) The pay scales of the teachers of Government aided schools shall be revised so as to bring them at par with the pay scales of teachers of Government schools with effect from April 1, 1979 and the differential amount as a result of such revision in pay scales shall be paid in four six monthly instalments, the first instalment being payable by June 30, 1990; (ii) The teachers of the Government aided schools shall be paid additional dearness allowances on the basis of the revised pay scales with effect from April 1, 1979 to December 31, 1985 and the arrears of such additional dearness allowance found payable as a result of such revision shall be paid alongwith the last part of the five instalments of additional dearness allowance which is to be paid in September, 1990; (iii) The parity in the pay scales and dearness allowance of teachers employed in aided schools and those employed in Government schools shall be maintained and with that end in view the pay scales of teachers employed in Government aided schools shall be revised and brought at par with the pay scales and dearness allowance payable to the teachers employed in Government school with effect from January 1, 1986. (iv) As from April 1, 1990, the teachers employed in aided schools shall be paid the same salary and dearness allowance as is paid to teachers employed in Government schools. (v) The arrears of pay and dearness allowance payable as a result of such revision for the period from January 1, 1986 to March 31, 1990 shall be paid in four six monthly instalments, the first such instalment being payable by June 30, 1990." 3. The Kothari Commission appointed by the Central Government to examine the conditions of the service of the teachers with the object of improving the standard of education in the country had also recommended that the scales of pay of school teachers working under different Managements of Government, Local Bodies or Private Management should be the same. 4. The Kothari Commission appointed by the Central Government to examine the conditions of the service of the teachers with the object of improving the standard of education in the country had also recommended that the scales of pay of school teachers working under different Managements of Government, Local Bodies or Private Management should be the same. 4. The State Legislature to provide for better organisation and development of education in non-government educational Institutions in the State of Rajasthan has enacted the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and it has received assent of the President of India on 4th June, 1992. Besides other things, the Act deals with recognisation, of non-governmental educational institutions, grant-in-aid, administration and management of recognised educational' Institutions, conditions of service of the employees and constitution of Tribunal etc. In fact, by this Act and the rules framed under it, the State Government has a deep and pervasive control on the recognised and aided private schools. 5. Section-16 of the Act empowers the State Government to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service, including conditions relating to qualification, pay, gratuity, insurance, age of retirement, entitlement of leave, conduct and discipline of persons appointed as exployees of aided institutions in the State. Section 17 provides the method of recruitment of employees and Section 18 makes provision regarding removal, dismissal or reduction in rank of employees. Then, Section 29 is about pay and allowances of employees of an aided institution and it reads as under.Section-29-Pay and allowances of employees : "(1) The scales of pay and allowances except compensatory allowances with respect to all the employees of an aided institution shall not be less than those prescribed for the staff belonging to similar categories in Government Institutions. (2) Notwithstanding any contract to the contrary the salary of an employee of a recognised institution, for any period after the commencement of this Act, shall be paid to him by the Management before the expiry of the fifteenth day of such earlier day, as the State Government may, by general or special order appoint, of the month next following the month in respect of which or part of which it is payable: Provided that if at any time the State Government deems it fit, it may prescribe a different procedure for payment of salary and allowances; (3) The salary shall be paid without deductions of any kind except those authorised by the rules made under this Act or by any other law for the time being in force." 6. Then, Section 30 provides inspection for payment of salaries to check mal practices and exploitation of the employees by the Management of a private aided institution. Section 31 provides that management of an aided institution shall disburse the salaries of its employees by account payees cheques and any concession in this matter can only be given by the Director of Education in special circumstances. 7. After coming into force of the aforesaid Act, it is now too late to say that the teachers in the aided private schools are not entitled to parity in the matter of salaries, allowances etc. with their counter-parts in a Government school. 8. In the back ground referred to above, the factual aspect of the case may be narrated: The respondent herein Smt. Jai Shree Dave was initially appointed in the year 1983 as a Craft Teacher by the petitioner Management on a fixed salary of Rs. 350/- per month. Subsequently, after a period of ten years or so, she was given regular pay scale of Grade-III teacher from April 1, 1992, but this order was withdrawn by a subsequent order dated, 6th Nov., 1993 whereby she was appointed on a fixed salary of Rs. 950/- per month. The petitioner challenged this order before the Rajasthan Non-government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur. The Tribunal by its impugned order dated, July 4, 1994 set aside the order of the Management and directed that the teacher be paid salary and allowances as per order dated May 1, 1992. The Management was also directed to pay the arrears of pay and other allowances to her. 9. The Tribunal by its impugned order dated, July 4, 1994 set aside the order of the Management and directed that the teacher be paid salary and allowances as per order dated May 1, 1992. The Management was also directed to pay the arrears of pay and other allowances to her. 9. The Management has come before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby it challenged the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. 10. Mr. S.K. Mittal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Institution contended that the order dated, May 1, 1992 granting regular pay scale of Teacher Gr. III to the respondent was not a valid order as the same was passed without getting approval of the Executive Committee. It was also contended that any dispute with regard to the payment is outside the purview of the Tribunal and the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in granting relief to the respondent teacher. According to the learned counsel, the dispute in respect of Fay does not fall within the purview of conditions of service of an employee. was also contended that Section 29 of the Act has no application when a consolidated fixed salary is paid to the respondent teacher. Lastly, it was urged that respondent Teacher is not qualified to be appointed as a Craft Teacher as recognisation to the certificate of the Gujarat Education Board has been withdrawn by the State Government from the year 1978-79. 11. After giving careful and anxious consideration to the above submissions, I am of opinion that none of them has any merit. The contention of the learned counsel that a dispute with respect to pay of a teacher is not connected with the conditions of service and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide such matter is wholly misconceived and deserves to be rejected outright. Section-16 itself makes it clear that conditions of service includes pay, gratuity, insurance, age of retirement etc. Otherwise also, the pay of an employee is a main condition of service. Section-21 of the Act clearly provides that where there is any dispute between the Management of a recognised institution or any of its employee with respect to the conditions of service, the Management or the employee may make an application in the prescribed manner to the Tribunal and the decision of the Tribunal thereon shall be final. 12. Section-21 of the Act clearly provides that where there is any dispute between the Management of a recognised institution or any of its employee with respect to the conditions of service, the Management or the employee may make an application in the prescribed manner to the Tribunal and the decision of the Tribunal thereon shall be final. 12. Similarly, the contention that payment of a fixed pay by the Management to the respondent teacher falls outside section 29 is also erroneous. Section 29 makes it clear that scale of pay and allowances, except compensatory allowance, with respect to the employees of an aided institution shall not be less than those prescribed for the staff belonging to same category in Government institutions. Therefore, the respondent teacher, as a Craft teacher, is entitled to get the same pay scale as that of a Craft Teacher in Government school, i.e. the pay scale of Gr. III teacher. 13. The argument of the learned counsel that respondent teacher was not qualified to the appointed as a Craft Teacher is also devoid of force. She has passed Senior school Examination in the year 1978 and also obtained diploma in tailoring from the Gujarat Education Board in the year 1977, besides she has also qualified in English typing examination from the State Board of Education Gujarat in the year 1977 and completed teacher training in the year 1989. The order of the State Government dated, 15th April 1978, derecognising Tailoring and Cutting Certificate Examination of Gujarat State also makes it clear that the said order shall not apply to diploma holders upto the session 1978-79. The respondent has obtained diploma in Tailoring and Cutting from the Gujarat Education Board in the year 1977, as such, she was not affected by the order of the State Government. From the reply of the respondent teacher it transpires that she has been teaching Craft subject from 3rd to 9th classes and this fact is also borne out from the documents annexures R-2/2, R-2/3 and R-2/4. 14. The net result of the above discussion is that the respondent teacher is entitled to get pay scale of a Craft Teacher and, in fact, she was given regular pay scale very late in the year 1992 by Management, apparently it was an act of exploitation on its part. The order of the Tribunal, therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity. The order of the Tribunal, therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs, which is quantified as Rs. 2,000/- to be paid to the respondent-teacher within three months from today by the petitioner.Petition dismissed. *******