JUDGMENT 1. - By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set aside the orders dated 31st July, 2007 and 13th August, 2007 (Annexures-4 and 6), whereby the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Jaipur City (East), Jaipur, passed an order in execution proceedings directing the judgment-debtor/respondent no.3 District Education Officer, Elementary Education (I), Jaipur to deduct the decretal amount of Rs. 5,10,946/- from the amount of grant in aid payable to the petitioner. 2. Adumbrated in brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is an Educational Society and has been running educational institutions and imparting education to the students through Gaur Vipra Primary School. The Gaur Vipra Primary School is an aided institution, which has been receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government. The respondent no. 2 Smt. Kusum Agarwal was appointed by the petitioner Society as a trained Teacher on 30th June, 1971 after undertaking the recruitment process. She was appointed relying on the certificate of B.S.T.C produced by her. Subsequently, she was not found a trained Teacher in view of the Government Order dated 25th August, 2000 and her services were terminated w.e.f. 22nd September, 2000. The respondent no.2 Smt. Kusum Agarwal preferred an appeal against the said termination order dated 21st September, 2000, before the Tribunal and the same was allowed. Aggrieved with the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court, which also stood dismissed on 16th September, 2002. The respondent, thereafter, retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30th September, 2001. In the meanwhile, the respondent no.2 Smt. Kusum Agarwal filed another Appeal no. 147/2001 before the Rajasthan Non-Governmental Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred in short as 'RNGEIT, Jaipur') under Section 21 of the Act of 1989 and claimed following reliefs:- (i) Grant of selection grade in pursuance of order dated 25th January, 1992. (ii) Fixation of pay since 1.9.1996 under the Revised Pay Scale (Fifth Pay Commission) Rules, 1998; (iii) Disbursement of arrear amount from 1.9.1996 to 30.3.1999 with interest @ 18% per annum. 3. (ii) Fixation of pay since 1.9.1996 under the Revised Pay Scale (Fifth Pay Commission) Rules, 1998; (iii) Disbursement of arrear amount from 1.9.1996 to 30.3.1999 with interest @ 18% per annum. 3. This application was contested by the petitioner by filing a reply, however, the RNGEIT, Jaipur, vide its order dated 5th December, 2002 allowed the application and directed the petitioner to pay the dues amount pursuant to the order dated 25th January, 1992 after fixation of pay and also directed that if any amount was found due under Revised Pay Scale (Fifth Pay Commission) Rules, 1998, then they also must be paid. 4. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 filed an execution application before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jaipur City (East), Jaipur, seeking an execution of the order dated 8th February, 2001 and 5th December, 2002 rendered by the learned RNGEIT, Jaipur. In the execution application, it was stated that in compliance of the judgment of the Tribunal dated 8th February, 2001, the respondent was entitled to get salary and allowances for the period w.e.f. 22nd September, 2000 till her superannuation on 30th September, 2002 and further in compliance of the judgment dated 5th December, 2002, the respondent no. 2 Kusum Agarwal was entitled to get benefit of selection grade, pay fixation under the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1996. As per the due drawn statement, the respondent no.2 claimed a sum of Rs. 8,24,907/-. The learned Executing Court having heard both the parties decreed an amount of Rs. 5,10,946/- in favour of the respondent no.2 Kusum Agarwal and against the petitioner Society. 5. Learned Executing Court passed an attachment order on 24th March, 2006 of Account No. 177819 of the petitioner Society in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Chaura Rasta, Branch Jaipur to the extent of decretals amount of Rs. 5,10,946/-. The respondent no.2 subsequently, filed another application before the executing court on 14th December, 2006 stating therein that albeit the learned court had passed an attachment order for attachment of Bank Account of the petitioner Society, but compliance of the order could not be made for want of sufficient funds in the petitioner's account. The respondent therefore prayed that the decreetal amount, therefore, could be ordered to be recovered from the District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Jaipur, from the grant-in-aid allowed in favour of the petitioners. The respondent therefore prayed that the decreetal amount, therefore, could be ordered to be recovered from the District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Jaipur, from the grant-in-aid allowed in favour of the petitioners. The learned executing court passed an order dated 31st July, 2007 directing District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Jaipur-I, Jaipur, for ensuring compliance of the decree as per rules within a period of one month and require him to submit report on 7th September, 2007. The petitioner institution felt aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31st July, 2007 and 7th September, 2007 rendered by the executing court and thus, invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction by way of filing the instant writ petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned orders. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the impugned orders rendered by the learned executing court are contrary to law and have resulted injustice to the petitioner. Learned counsel took me through the Circular dated 15th April, 2007 issued by the Secretary, School Education and contended that the order of the Government with regard to grant of selection scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service were not applicable to the employees working in the Non-Government Educational Institutions. Hence, the impugned order dated 31st July, 2007 and the order sent by the Executing court to the District Education Officer on 13th August, 2007 are contrary to law and they deserve to be set aside. 8. E converso, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 Smt. Kusum Agarwal vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and defended the impugned orders and stated the same to be just and proper. He further contended that the grant of selection scale on completion of 9, 18, 27 years of service to the Government Employees are also applicable to the employees of the Non-Government Educational Institutions. He has cited the Full Bench judgment of this court in support thereof. 9. In the case of S.R. Higher Secondary School & Anr. He further contended that the grant of selection scale on completion of 9, 18, 27 years of service to the Government Employees are also applicable to the employees of the Non-Government Educational Institutions. He has cited the Full Bench judgment of this court in support thereof. 9. In the case of S.R. Higher Secondary School & Anr. v. Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur & 23 Others , Full Bench of Rajasthan High Court held thus:- "The real question which requires adjudication by this court is whether the grant of selection scale to the Government servants as per the aforesaid circular is a promotion to the higher post or a higher pay scale in the same post. It it is pay scale then the teachers of NGEIs would also be entitled for the same in accordance with Section 29 of Act read with R.34 of the Rules. But, if grant of selection scale is a promotion then it is difficult to comprehend that the teachers of NEGIs would also be entitled for the same." 10. Having discussed the cases of Lalit Mohan Dev & Others v. Union of India & Others reported in (1973) 3 SCC 862 ; Dayaram Asanand Gursahani v. State of Mahanrashtra & Others, reported in (1984) 3 SCC 36 ; Union of India & Another v. S.S. Ranade, reported in (1995) 4 SCC 462 ; State of Rajasthan v. Fateh Chand Soni, reported in (1996) 1 SCC 562 and placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered therein, the Full Bench of this Court, keeping in view the provisions of Section 29 of the Act and rule 34 of the Rules and Circular dated 25th January, 1992, held that selection scale was not a promotion to higher post, but higher pay scale on the same post, hence, in view of the circular, pay scales to the teachers of Government Educational Institutions by virtue of the statutory provisions were also payable to the teachers of the Non-Government Educational Institutions also. Thus, it is now settled that the mandate of Section 29 of the Act is that the scale 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. Thus, it is now settled that the mandate of Section 29 of the Act is that the scale 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. Thereafter, scale of pay and allowances of employees of an aided institution shall have parity with the employees of Government. The scale of pay of the teachers in Non-Government Educational Institutions shall, therefore, be similar to that of the servants/teachers in Government Institutions. Under rule 35 also, the scale of pay and allowances of the staff of the aided institutions shall not be less than those prescribed by the Government for the staff of similar category of the Government Educational Institutions. 11. The case of the respondent no.2 is squarely covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of S.R. Higher Secondary School (supra). 12. In the light of the Full Bench judgment of this Court, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is found to be totally frivolous and vexatious and being devoid of any substance out rightly deserves to be dismissed. 13. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed.Write Petition Dismissed. *******