Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1880 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Management Committee Sh. Bhagwan Das Todi College

2015-11-06

AJAY RASTOGI, J.K.RANKA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Ajay Rastogi, J. These intra-court appeals have been preferred against order of the ld.Single Judge dt.11.07.2013 directing the State of Rajasthan to grant approval and release the grant-in-aid to the Managing Committee of the Institution, the original writ petitioner, on payment of dues towards enhancement of salary under the 6th Pay Commission; arrears of salary as a result of revision of pay-scales under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay-Scales) Rules, 1998; amount towards selection scales admissible to the employees under the Notification dt.25.01.1992; and arrears towards leave encashment to which the employee is entitled for at par with the employees of the similar category in the State Government Institutions. The ld.Single Judge mandated the Managing Committee of the Institute and the State Government that the entire exercise for payment of arrears, grant of approval and release of grant-in-aid be completed within a period of three months under the provisions of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 and the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-aid and Service Conditions Etc.) Rules, 1993 framed thereunder. It may be noticed that the State Counsel has admitted before the ld.Single Judge that the self same issue came up for consideration before the Single Bench of this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2475/2006 [Rajasthan Mahila Vidhyalaya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.] decided on 25.10.2007 and has been further confirmed by the Division Bench vide judgment dt.27.08.2010 in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.02696/2009 [State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Mahila Vidhyalaya, Udaipur]. Thereafter, review petitions came to be filed by the State Government seeking protection and invoking R.5(vii) of the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules, 2010 that the State is not under obligation to pay arrears to the employees who have been absorbed under the Rules of 2010 and review petitions at the instance of the State of Rajasthan also came to be dismissed by the ld.Single Judge with costs. At the outset, it may be noticed that we had occasion to examine R.5 (vii) of the Rules, 2010 in D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) Nos.626/2013 & 635/2013 filed at the instance of the Managing Committee Bal Vidhyalaya and since the lis was between the Institution and employees and the appeals came to be dismissed vide judgment dt.22.11.2013 where the Institution also claimed its immunity from payment of arrears to the employees of which we had made a reference hereinafter seeking protection u/R.5(vii) & (xi) of the Rules, 2010. In that context, we observed that Cl.(vii) read with Cl.(xi) of the R.5 of Rules, 2010 could not absolve the Institution from their financial liability which is supposed to be discharged by making payment to the employees for the period of service which has been rendered by each of them in the Institution. However, the question which has been raised in the instant batch of appeals filed at the instance of the State Government claiming their immunity/absolving their financial liability to sanction grant-in-aid to the Non-Government Educational Institutions in the light of Cl.(vii) of R.5 has not come up for consideration before us in the earlier batch of appeals decided vide judgment dt.22.11.2013 passed in D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) Nos.626/2013 & 635/2013. The core question which has been raised before us in the present batch of appeals, filed at the instance of the State Government, is:- “Whether the State Government is under an obligation to extend aid to the Non-Government Educational institutions against approved expenditures provided u/R.14 of the Rules, 1993 which includes arrears of salary, selection scales/grades, revision of pay-scales, encashment of leave, etc. relating to the employees of such Institutions prior to coming into force of the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules, 2010?” If the answer is in affirmative, the question further arises as to whether the State Government in the light of Cl.(vii) of R.5 of Rules, 2010 can claim its immunity from its liability to sanction grant-in-aid to the Non-Government Educational Institutions.” To understand the controversy raised in the instant batch of appeals, it may be relevant to first take note of the scheme of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 and Rules, 1993 framed thereunder, but prior thereto this court would further like to take note of the earlier scheme of grant-in-aid namely, the Rajasthan Rules for Payment of Grant-in-Aid to Non-Government Educational & Cultural Institutions, 1963, which was originally conceptualized by the Government for sanctioning grant-in-aid to the Non-Government Educational Institutions. Initially, the State Government by its executive instructions sanctioned grant-in-aid to the Educational Institutions which were governed by the Rajasthan Rules for Payment of Grant-in-Aid to Non-Government Educational & Cultural Institutions, 1963 (in short called “the Rules of 1963”) which was non-statutory and mere executive instructions of the Government to the private educational aided institutions as a condition for implementation of pay-scales and to govern the service conditions of the employees/teachers working in the educational institutions receiving grant-in-aid. At that point of time, it was open for the institutions to either accept those executive instructions or not to accept them but at the same time, if it decides not to accept the executive instructions, it will naturally not get the grant-in-aid which is contingent on its accepting the conditions contained in the executive instructions and on the other hand, if the institution accepts the conditions contained in the executive instructions, it will receive the grant-in-aid. However, if having accepted executive instructions containing the terms & conditions, the institution fails to carry out the executive instructions, the Government will naturally have the right to withhold grant-in-aid u/R.4(i) of the Rules, 1963. However, if having accepted executive instructions containing the terms & conditions, the institution fails to carry out the executive instructions, the Government will naturally have the right to withhold grant-in-aid u/R.4(i) of the Rules, 1963. It is how the matter between the Government and the private aided institution being regulated under the scheme of Rules, 1963 but the Rules, 1963 indeed have no statutory force and being executive instructions introduced for the purpose of grant-in-aid to the private educational institutions and what grant the State Government should sanction to a Non-Government Educational Institution and for what term, are matters for the State Government to decide. Conditions of these grants may be prescribed by the non-statutory rules, if any, and there is, however, no law preventing the State Government from prescribing the conditions of such grants by mere executive instructions which do not have the force of law. However, by passage of time, the State Government came across with the situation where the grant-in-aid being not properly utilized and the service conditions of the employees of the Non-Government Aided Institutions could not be properly safeguarded or there being an exploitation by the Management, keeping the object of Right to Education & Art.21-A of the Constitution as a paramount consideration and to provide for better organization and development of education in the private aided institutions in the State of Rajasthan, the State Government enacted “the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989” (in short called “the Act of 1989”) which came into force after its publication in the official gazette w.e.f. 01.01.1993 and after the statutory Act of 1989 came into force, it certainly regulated the service conditions of the employees and also the terms on which the State holds statutory power to control the grant-in-aid sanctioned to the Non-Government Aided Institutions and to regulate the provisions of the Act, grant-in-aid and service conditions, etc., the State Government, in exercise of its powers conferred u/Sec.43 of the Act of 1989 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, framed the “Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-aid and Service Conditions Etc.) Rules, 1993 which came into force on publication in official gazette on 01.04.1993. It may be noticed that prior to the Act of 1989 coming into force w.e.f. 01.01.1993, the service conditions of the employees and grant-in-aid to the Non-Government Aided Institutions were being regulated by the executive instructions in the form of Rules, 1963 having no statutory force and are not enforceable in the court of law but that enforceability was extended to the employees by protecting their service conditions after the enactment of the Act, 1989 and the Rules, 1993 framed thereunder. It is the service conditions of the employees, which has been safeguarded by the State Government, of Non-Government Aided Institutions receiving grant-in-aid under the Act of 1989. It is not disputed that each of the Non-Government Educational Institution was receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government. If we take a look of the relevant provisions of the Act of 1989, Chapter-III pertains to Aid, Accounts & Audit relating to the Non-Government Educational Institutions. Sec.7 of the Act provides grant-in-aid to recognized institutions subject to fulfillment of terms & conditions as may be prescribed by the sanctioning authority which may sanction and distribute aid to the recognized institutions from time to time in accordance with the prescribed procedure and such sanction made by the Government may cover such part of the approved expenditures of the institution, as may be prescribed, with the rider that no amount out of aid given for salary of the employees shall be utilized by the institution for any other purpose with a further rider that sanctioning authority may stop, reduce or suspend the aid on breach of any of the terms & conditions prescribed in this behalf and amount of aid shall normally be paid to the Secretary of the Managing Committee of an institution, however, in special circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, such amount may be paid by a person authorized by the Director of Education or by any other officer empowered by him in this behalf. However, Sec.8 of the Act provides that every aided institution shall keep the accounts in such manner and containing such particulars, as may be prescribed, which shall be audited at the end of every academic year and the audit report has to be submitted to the competent authority obviously for the reason that when the grant-in-aid is being sanctioned and disbursed by the State Government, the State Government owns responsibility to see whether it has been utilized for the purpose for which it has been sanctioned and that is possible only by auditing the accounts maintained by the Managing Committee of the Institutions. Chapter-VI of the Act, 1989 governs the conditions of service and by Sec.16 of the Act, the State Government regulates the terms & conditions of service of employees of aided institutions relating to qualifications, pay, gratuity, insurance, age of retirement, entitlement of leave, conduct & discipline of persons appointed as employees of aided institutions in the State and Sec.29 of the Act deals with pay & allowances of employees which envisages that the scales of pay & 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 category in Government institutions and the State Government through its officials shall keep vigil over the payment of salaries and payments have to be made by the Management of the aided institution to its employees are being regulated u/Sec.31(1) of the Act with a further rider u/Sec.31(2) of the Act that in the event of Management of an aided institution fails to pay the salary of its employees, as referred to in sub-sec.(1) or in Sec.29, the Director of Education has been authorized, or any other officer authorized by him, holds competence to deduct such salary from the amount payable as the next grant-in-aid or from the amount of any subsequent grant-in-aid and pay directly to the staff such salary on behalf of the Management and such payment shall be considered to be deemed payment of money to the Management of the institution. For ready reference, Secs.16, 29 & 31 of the Act, 1989, which are relevant for the present purpose, are reproduced ad infra:- “16.Power of the State Government to regulate the terms and conditions of employment:- (1) The State Government may regulate the recruitment and conditions of service, including conditions relating to qualifications, pay, gratuity, insurance, age of retirement, entitlement of leave, conduct and discipline, of persons appointed as employees of aided institutions in the State: Provided that the rights and benefits accruing to an employee of an existing institution under the grant-in-aid rules in force at the commencement of this Act shall not be varied to the disadvantage of such employee: Provided further that every such employee shall be entitled to opt for such terms and conditions of service as were applicable to him immediately before the commencement of this Act: Provided also that, irrespective of the age of retirement prescribed, action may be taken for compulsory retirement of such an employee after completion of 25 years of service or on attainment of the age of 50 years whichever is earlier, in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed. (2) Every recognised institution shall constitute a provident fund for the benefit of its employees in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed and contribute to such fund and pay interest on the deposited amount at such rate as may be prescribed from time to time. 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 recognized 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 or 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. 31. Payment of salaries.- (1) The management of an aided institution shall disburse the salaries of its employees by account payee cheques: Provided that the Director of Education may, in special circumstances, direct, by general or special order, to disburse the salaries of employees in any other manner as he thinks fit. (2) In case the management of an aided institution fails to pay the salary of its employees as referred to in sub-section (1) or in section 29, the Director of Education or any officer authorised by him may deduct such salary from the amount payable as the next grant-in-aid, or if necessary, from the amount of any subsequent grant-in-aid and pay to the staff such salary on behalf of the management. Such payment shall be deemed to be a payment of money to the management of the institution itself.” For proper implementation and carrying out the effect of the provisions of Act, 1989, the State Government, in exercise of its powers conferred u/Sec.43 of the Act of 1989 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, framed the “Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-aid and Service Conditions Etc.) Rules, 1993. Chapter-III (Aid, Accounts & Audit) R.9 of the Rules, 1993 authorizes the State Government to sanction grants for maintenance or recurring grant, non-recurring grant towards equipments, building etc. and such other grants, as may be sanctioned by the Government from time to time. Chapter-III (Aid, Accounts & Audit) R.9 of the Rules, 1993 authorizes the State Government to sanction grants for maintenance or recurring grant, non-recurring grant towards equipments, building etc. and such other grants, as may be sanctioned by the Government from time to time. R.10 of the Rules, 1993 prescribes general conditions governing grant-in-aid and every institution which applies for grant-in-aid shall be deemed to have accepted its obligation to comply with the conditions constituted thereunder and the procedure for sanction of grant-in-aid has been provided u/R.11 of the Rules, 1993 & R.14 provides the approved expenditures for which the State Government is under an obligation to sanction grant-in-aid to the Non-Government Educational Institutions and since the State Government holds right to keep vigil over the Non-Government Educational Institutions, the mode to be adopted for payment of pay & allowances to the employees of the institution are being regulated u/R.34 & 35 of the Rules which also mandates that scales of pay & allowances of the staff of the Aided Institutions shall not be less than those prescribed by the Government for the staff of similar category in the Government Educational Institutions and the condition of eligibility of a teacher/employee of the Non-Government Aided Institution shall be the same as being applicable to the staff of similar category working in the Government Educational Institution and such grant-in-aid shall not be utilized for any other purpose other than for which it has been sanctioned and the Institutions are mandated that payment of pay & allowances to the employees shall be paid by Account Payee Cheques only, failing which the expenditure made on this account shall not be admitted for grant-in-aid and the leave of employee of an Aided Institution is regulated u/R.46 of the Rules which is almost pari materia to that of the employees of similar category working in the Government Educational Institution and they are also entitled to gratuity in terms of R.82 of the Rules, 1993 as admissible under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Thus, the rights of employees of Aided Institutions have been completely safeguarded under the Act of 1989 & Rules, 1993 framed thereunder. Thus, the rights of employees of Aided Institutions have been completely safeguarded under the Act of 1989 & Rules, 1993 framed thereunder. After the Act of 1989 & Rules, 1993 framed thereunder came into force, there were several issues raised which came up for consideration one after the other before the court, as to whether the employees of Aided Institutions are entitled for selection grades as being admissible to the employees of similar category of State Government under its Notification dt.25.01.1992. The State Government in its Notification dt.25.01.1992 prescribed selection grades for its employees in the cadre of Class-IV, ministerial and subordinate service on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service. After the application of the Act of 1989 and Rules, 1993 framed thereunder, pay-scales of all the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Non-Government Aided Institutions, in terms of Sec.29 of the Act, 1989 read with R.34 of the Rules, 1993, came at par with the similar category of employees working in the Government Educational Institutions but the decision of the State Government, notified vide Notification dt.25.01.1992 was not applied by the Non-Government Educational Institutions for their employees and several employees approached Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal to seek a direction for the grant of selection grades, in terms of Notification dt.25.01.1992 passed by the State Government and the applications so preferred came to be allowed and the Aided Institutions preferred writ petitions before this Court to challenge the order passed by the ld.Tribunal. The issue, so agitated, came to be resolved by the Full Bench decision of this Court in S.R.Higher Secondary School & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur & Ors. reported in 2002(2) WLC (Raj.) 586. Three questions which arose before the Full Bench for consideration are as follows:- “(1) Whether the teachers of Non-Government Educational Institution (for short ‘NGEIs’) who are receiving grant-in-aid under the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) read with the rules framed thereunder, namely the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-aid and Service Conditions etc.) Rules, 1993 (for short ‘the Rules’), are entitled to selection scale as given to the employees/teachers serving in government educational institutions by virtue of the circular/order dated 25.01.1992. (2) Whether the government is bound to give grant-in-aid for selection scale of the teachers of NGEIs receiving aid, and (3) Whether the teachers of NGEIs receiving aid are entitled for leave encashment benefits after retirement under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.” The Full Bench of this court after taking note of Sec.29 of the scheme of the Act, 1989 and R.34 of the Rules, 1993, in particular, declared the employees of Non-Government Educational Institutions entitled to selection scales as given to the employees/Teachers of similar category serving in the Government Institutions and while declaring the entitlement of the employees for grant of selection grades, as per the Notification dt.25.01.1992, it was also held by the Full Bench that the selection scale is admissible to the employees of the Non-Government Educational Institutions and once the State Government has decided to sanction grant-in-aid to a Non-Government Educational Institution, it will form a part of the approved expenditure and the State Government is under an obligation to sanction in proportion of grant-in-aid to the Non-Government Educational Institution and as regards encashment of leave, it was observed by the Full Bench that the Teachers working in Non-Government Educational Institutions are entitled for payment of encashment of leave on their retirement, which is nothing but salary for unavailed leave to the credit of the employee which becomes part of salary, as provided u/Sec.2(r) of the Act, 1989 which certainly has a very wide connotation. The judgment of Full Bench of this court came to be challenged by the State of Rajasthan before the Apex Court and the appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan came to be dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dt.15.09.2004 [State of Rajasthan and Another Vs. Senior Higher Secondary School, Lachhmangarh & Ors.] reported in (2005) 10 SCC 346 . Senior Higher Secondary School, Lachhmangarh & Ors.] reported in (2005) 10 SCC 346 . It was finally held that the employees of Aided Institutions are entitled to claim selection scales/grades, in terms of Notification dt.25.01.1992, at par with the employees of similar category working in the Government Educational Institutions and are also entitled to the benefit of leave encashment at par with the employees of Government Educational Institutions and this controversy finally put to rest by the judgment of the Apex Court that all such payments being approved expenditures, the State Government is indeed under an obligation to release grant-in-aid which includes selection scales/grades, arrears of pay & allowances and leave encashment to the employees of Aided Institutions, etc. obviously in the proportion to the grant-in-aid sanctioned to the Institution concerned. At the same time, a controversy came up for consideration before the ld.Tribunal and went finally to the Apex Court that whether scheme of the Act, 1989 provides that employees of Aided Institutions is entitled for gratuity u/R.82 of the Rules, 1993 in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Initially, there was an on-going dispute between the Aided Institutions, State Government and the employees regarding its entitlement and finally it was settled by the Apex Court in Rajasthan Welfare Society Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2005) 5 SCC 275 and it was held that the employees are entitled for gratuity, in terms of R.82 of the Rules, 1993, as admissible under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 but it was not considered to be an approved expenditure, as provided u/R.14 of the Rules, 1993 and the Apex Court in its judgment, referred to supra, while upholding the gratuity admissible to the employees of the Aided Institutions held that this being not an approved expenditure covered u/R.14 of the Rules, the State Government is not under an obligation to sanction grant-in-aid towards the amount of gratuity. The relevant para of the judgment for our purpose, is extracted ad infra:- “16. In view of the aforesaid, the gratuity within the meaning of the Act and Rules cannot form part of recurring grant. It is not includable as part of approved expenditure for the purposes of computing the amount of grant payable to the appellant. The relevant para of the judgment for our purpose, is extracted ad infra:- “16. In view of the aforesaid, the gratuity within the meaning of the Act and Rules cannot form part of recurring grant. It is not includable as part of approved expenditure for the purposes of computing the amount of grant payable to the appellant. In this view, communication dated 26th May, 1994 of Government of Rajasthan to the effect that the Rules do not provide for grant-in-aid on amount of gratuity, the same being not included in the approved expenditures, cannot be held to be illegal. This will, however, not affect the rights of the employees to get the gratuity from the institution concerned. 17. Before parting, we wish to note that if representations are made by aided Non-Government Educational Institutions, the State Government would consider sympathetically the question of the gratuity amount payable to the employees being taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the amount of grant-in-aid. We, however, clarify that pending making of such representation and its consideration, the payment of gratuity of the employees shall not be delayed.” Thus, the issue finally settled by the Apex Court that as regards gratuity is concerned, it is admissible to the employees u/R.82 of the Rules, 1993 but this being not an approved expenditure, as contemplated u/R.14 of the Rules, 1993, the State Government is not under an obligation to sanction grant-in-aid on the amount of gratuity and the employees are entitled to claim their right to gratuity only from the concerned Institution but at the same time, as regards pay & allowances, arrears of salary, selection grade and leave encashment, all have been considered to be the approved expenditures and the employees of the Aided Institutions became entitled for their dues against pay & allowances, arrears of salary on revision of pay scale from time to time admissible to the employees of similar category working in the Government Educational Institutions and the State Government is under an obligation to sanction grant-in-aid in proportion to the Institution concerned. In the light of Full Bench judgment and confirmed by the Apex Court, the Government of Rajasthan sanctioned grant-in-aid to the Non-Government Educational Institutions against selection grades, pay & allowances and revision of pay-scales from time to time, leave encashment as allowed to the employees of the similar category in the State Government Institutions and at the same time, as regards the component of gratuity, in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, that being not an approved expenditure, the employee is entitled to claim the same only from the Educational Institution. After the legal position became finally settled upto the Apex Court, the State Government in exercise of its powers conferred by the proviso to Art.309 of the Constitution, came out with the Rules regulating the appointment and other service conditions of persons to be appointed in the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service namely ‘The Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules, 2010’ and these Rules have been purposely framed by the State Government with the object that all the employees of the Non-Government Aided Institutions who have worked against sanctioned & aided posts be absorbed in the State Government and the State Government can discontinue the grant-in-aid to the respective Aided Institutions and the ongoing litigation can be put to rest. From scheme of the Rules, 2010, it clearly emerges that the basic object is to regulate appointment and other service conditions of employees working against sanctioned & aided posts in the Non-Government Aided Institutions and after they are screened and found suitable, to be considered for appointment under the voluntary Rural Education Scheme of State Government and such of the employees who are interested in securing their employment in the State Government obviously were supposed to submit their application in Form-I, attached to the Rules, 2010, to be forwarded by the Secretary of the concerned Institution verifying service particulars of the employees of the Aided Institutions and after their suitability being adjudged by the screening committee constituted u/R.4(3) of the Rules, 2010, the names of the suitable candidates are to be forwarded for appointment to the appointing authority. A bare perusal of the terms & conditions provided u/R.5 of the Rules, 2010 clearly envisages that the employees appointed after being screened are to be fixed in the Sixth Pay Commission w.e.f. the date they joined service in the State Government but the State Government tried to claim its financial immunity u/Cls.(vii), (viii) & (xi) of R.5 of Rules, 2010 and at the same time, the State Government confine its share of responsibility for payment of pay & admissible allowances of the employee who joined service in the Government after being screened by the Screening Committee and the financial liability prior thereto the Government shifted to the Aided Institution and the State Government vide circular dt.08.11.2011 made its intention explicit clear that all such employees who worked in the Aided Institutions against sanctioned and aided posts are entitled to be fixed under Revised Pay-Scale Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 01.09.2006 and as per the undertaking which has been furnished by each of the employee, as contemplated u/Cl.(xi) of R.5 of the Rules, 2010, the State Government owns its liability from the date of joining in the Government after being appointed under the scheme of Rules, 2010. It will be appropriate to quote the relevant terms & conditions for appointment of employees in Government Service provided u/R.5 of Rules, 2010 which reads ad infra:- “R.5 Terms and conditions for appointment of employees in Government:-The regularly appointed existing employees in the Non-Government Aided Educational Institutions who are working against sanctioned aided post on the date of commencement of these rules shall be appointed under the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service on the following terms and conditions, namely:- (i) – (vi) XX XX XX (vii) No arrears on any account whatsoever, (including arrears of salary, selection scale, Assured Career Progression or Career Advancement Scheme) shall be paid by the State Government for the period prior to the date of their joining in the Government after appointment under these rules. (viii) Carry forward of the balance of Privilege Leave shall not be allowed. Employees shall be free to get payment of encashment of balance of P.L. from the respective grant-in-aid educational institutions. (ix) The persons who are appointed in the government service under these rules shall not be eligible for pension scheme. (viii) Carry forward of the balance of Privilege Leave shall not be allowed. Employees shall be free to get payment of encashment of balance of P.L. from the respective grant-in-aid educational institutions. (ix) The persons who are appointed in the government service under these rules shall not be eligible for pension scheme. Contributory Provident Fund Contribution, if not deposited by the Non-Government Aided Educational Institutions for the period prior to the date of their joining in the Government after appointment under these rules, shall not be paid by the State Government. They may either continue to be members of the Contributory Provident Fund or they may opt for the Rajasthan Civil Service (Contributory Pension) Rules, 2005. Employer’s contribution towards Contributory Provident Fund shall be paid by the Government for the period they are in government service. (x) XX XX XX (xi) Each employee shall be required to execute an undertaking, in Form-II, that he/she voluntarily accepts all the terms and conditions of service prescribed under these rules and agrees to serve in the government educational institutions situated in the rural areas till attaining the age of superannuation in the service of Government.” On application of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 their pay was required to be fixed in the revised pay-scales. The Rules of 2008 were made applicable w.e.f. 01.09.2006, as such their fixation in the revised pay was required to be made from the date aforesaid. The fixation in the revised pay-scales w.e.f. 01.09.2006 resulted into accrual of arrears of pay for the employees who were inducted to Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service, 2010 and to the employees of the Non-Government Educational Institutions who declined to join or found unsuitable for appointment under Rules, 2010, the arrears of pay due to revision of pay-scales appropriately was required to be paid by the State Government in the form of grant-in-aid to the Non-Government Educational Institutions but under the impugned communication dt.08.11.2011, such liability was transferred to the Non-Government Educational Institutions invoking Cl.(vii) of R.5 of the Rules, 2010 which provides that no arrears on any account whatsoever including arrears of salary, selection scale, Assured Career Progression or Career Advancement Scheme, etc. shall be shared by the State Government for the period prior to the date of their joining service in the Government after appointment under the Rules, 2010. shall be shared by the State Government for the period prior to the date of their joining service in the Government after appointment under the Rules, 2010. The Aided Institutions have challenged the transfer of such liability under the impugned communication dt.08.11.2011 on the count that till appointment of employees of the Non-Government Aided Educational Institutions under the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service, the State is under legal obligation to sanction grant-in-aid against pay & allowances including selection grades, arrears of salary, encashment of leave, the arrears accruing to the employees as a consequence of fixation of their pay in the revised pay-scales, etc. should be borne by the State Government in proportion to the grant-in-aid sanctioned by the State Government. Counsel for appellant-State Mr.Inderjeet Singh, Additional Advocate General submits that Cl.(vii) of R.5 of Rules, 2010 is explicitly clear that for such of the employees who are finally absorbed in the State Government, they shall not be entitled for any arrears on any count whatsoever either of salary, selection scale, leave encashment, etc. shall not be shared by the State Government for the period prior to the date of their joining in the State Government after appointment under the Rules, 2010 after furnishing of the undertaking by each of the employee, in the prescribed Form-II appended to the scheme of Rules, 2010, at least the State Government cannot be saddled with the financial liability of making payments of arrears accrued to the employees prior to their joining service in the State Government after appointment under the Rules, 2010. It is not disputed by the State Government that all the employees who were absorbed in the State Government under the Rules, 2010 obviously after being screened by the Screening Committee, constituted under the Rules, were working in the Non-Government Aided Institutions against sanctioned & aided posts and the State Government is under an obligation to sanction grant-in-aid for the period such employees had worked against sanctioned & aided posts in the Non-Government Aided Institutions against ‘approved expenditures’, as contemplated u/R.14 of the Rules, 1993 and claiming its immunity by invoking Cl.(vii) of R.5 of the Rules, 2010. Counsel submits that the Full Bench judgment of this court, which has been confirmed by the Apex Court as well are dealing with the Act, 1989 and Rules, 1993 framed thereunder i.e. prior to the Rules, 2010 came into force, in view of Cl.(vii) of R.5 of the Rules, 2010 at least financial liability of making payment of arrears accrued to the employees cannot be saddled upon the State Government and it is for the Aided Institutions to pay the arrears under the various heads which might have been an approved expenditures like arrears of salary, selection scale, leave encashment etc. Counsel submits that no one has challenged the validity of Cl.(vii) of R.5 of the Rules, 2010 and that being so, financial liability of making payment of arrears accrued to the employees cannot be saddled upon the State Government. In the alternative, counsel submits that if at all this court comes to the conclusion that the liability of State Government of making payment of arrears being approved expenditures created under the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 & Rules, 1993 framed thereunder still subsists, the Institutions can claim for reimbursement only after making payment of the arrears to the employees and since the Institutions have not paid arrears to the employees so far against the alleged approved expenditures, at least the Institutions cannot claim for reimbursement from the State Government. To counter the submissions made by Mr.Inderjeet Singh, Additional Advocate General, counsel for Institutions Mr.Vivek Dangi, Advocate submits that Cl.(xi) of R.5 of the Rules, 2010 provides that each employee has to execute an undertaking in the prescribed Form-II accepting the terms & conditions of service prescribed under the Rules, 2010. To counter the submissions made by Mr.Inderjeet Singh, Additional Advocate General, counsel for Institutions Mr.Vivek Dangi, Advocate submits that Cl.(xi) of R.5 of the Rules, 2010 provides that each employee has to execute an undertaking in the prescribed Form-II accepting the terms & conditions of service prescribed under the Rules, 2010. However, the fact remains that there is no privity of contract between the employees and the State Government and on the contrary, the privity of contract is between the employees and the Non-Government Aided Institutions and State Government has to sanction grant-in-aid against approved expenditures, as contemplated u/R.14 of the Rules, 1993 and privity of contract is between the Aided Institutions and the State Government, thus, immunity, as claimed by the State Government of not making payment of arrears which has been accrued to the employees on account of salaries, selection scale, Assured Career Progression or Career Advancement Scheme, etc, is not tenable in law and further submits that from conjoint reading of Cl.(vii) & Cl.(xi) of R.5 of the Rules, 2010 it appears that it has been introduced by the State Government with the object that if the employees are being absorbed in the State Government they might independently claim their arrears from the State Government for the period of service which they have rendered in the Non-Government Aided Institutions and obviously, the privity of contract is between the Institutions and State Government upto the period the Institution remains aided and receiving grant-in-aid from the Government, their rights and liability created under the Act of 1989 and Rules, 1993 framed thereunder cannot be abrogated on creation of subordinate legislation by Rules, 2010 and decision of the State Government to absorb employees of the Non-Government Aided Educational Institutions confines to those who are working on sanctioned & aided posts. Mr.Sarthak Rastogi, Advocate appearing for the employees submits that as regards arrears of salary on account of fixation, selection grade and leave encashment which are finally held to be the approved expenditures u/R.14 of the Rules, 1993 certainly they are entitled to be paid even after being absorbed in the State Government under the Rules, 2010 and it is between the Institution and State Government as to who will finally held entitled to take financial responsibility but as regards employees are concerned, counsel submits that whatever conclusion this court might finally arrives at, the State Government and the Institutions either jointly or severely at least may be directed to release the dues of the erstwhile employees of the Non-Government Aided Institution for payment of arrears in the time bound framework which this court considers appropriate and submits that the controversy, as regards rights of the employees are concerned, has been finally settled by the Division Bench vide judgment dt.22.11.2013 passed in D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) Nos.626/2013 & 635/2013 [Managing Committee Bal Vidhyalaya & Anr. Vs. The Rajasthan Non Government Educational Tribunal & Ors.]. The question that is having much significance in examining the present controversy is regarding financial liability of the State Government under the Act, 1989 to provide aid to the Non-Government Educational Institutions against arrears of salary, selection scale, leave encashment on retirement. The Full Bench examined this issue in lucid and held as under:- “19. Now, it brings us to the question as to whether the State is obliged to contribute grant-in-aid for the selection scale provided under the circular dated 25.1.1992. The Act of 1989 has been enacted to provide for better organization and development of education in the Non-Government educational institution in the State of Rajasthan. S.7 of the Act provides for grant of aid. Only a recognized institution run by a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act would be given the grant in aid subject to such terms as may be prescribed. The sanctioning authority may sanction and distribute aid to a recognized institution from time to time in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed. In exercise of the powers conferred by R.43 of the Rules the State Government framed Rules regulating recognition, grant of aid and service conditions etc. of the NEGIs. R.10 of the Rules provide for general conditions governing grant-in-aid. R.11 deals with procedure, for grant-in-aid. In exercise of the powers conferred by R.43 of the Rules the State Government framed Rules regulating recognition, grant of aid and service conditions etc. of the NEGIs. R.10 of the Rules provide for general conditions governing grant-in-aid. R.11 deals with procedure, for grant-in-aid. R.12 is for finalization of maintenance or recurring grant. R.13 is in regard to assessment of annual recurring grant on the basis of estimated expenditure of the current year and will be subject to adjustment of grant payable in the next year. R.14 deals with approved expenditures. R.15 is for payment of recurring grant. R.16 deals with non recurring grant. S.7 of the Act reads as under :- "Grant of aid to recognized institutions.- (1) No aid shall be claimed by an institution as a matter of right. (2) Unrecognized institutions shall not be eligible to receive any aid. (3) Subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed, the sanctioning authority may sanction and distribute aid to recognized institutions from time to time in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed. (4) The aid may cover such part of the expenditure of the institution as may be prescribed. (5) No amount out of aid given for salary of the employees of an institution shall be used for any other purpose. (6) The sanctioning authority may stop, reduce or suspend aid on breach of any of the terms and conditions prescribed in this behalf. (7) The amount of aid may normally be paid to the secretary of the managing committee of an institution but, in special circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, such amount may be paid to any person authorized by the Director of Education or by any other officer empowered by him in this behalf.'' On the basis of S.7 it is contended by the counsel for State that no aid can be claimed as a matter of right. It is for the government to decide not only whether the grant-in-aid is to be given to recognized institution but also as to how much and under what heads the grant is to be sanctioned to the NGEIs. It is for the government to decide not only whether the grant-in-aid is to be given to recognized institution but also as to how much and under what heads the grant is to be sanctioned to the NGEIs. In counter it is submitted by the counsel for petitioners that once educational institution is registered, it is entitled to grant- in-aid from government as a matter of right and for this proposition reliance was placed on the decision of State of Maharashtra v. Manubhai Pragaji Vashi, (1995) 5 SCC 730 . This case, in our opinion, does not assist the petitioners in contending that they are entitled as a matter of right to get the grant-in-aid from the State. It was a case in which the Govt. of Maharashtra denied grant-in-aid to the recognized private law colleges while the same was extended to other faculties of the private colleges. The court emphasized upon the necessity of giving legal education and to fulfill the obligation under Article 39A of the Constitution of providing free legal aid and held that the faculty of law in the matter of considering grant-in-aid run by private recognized colleges cannot be discriminated on the ground of being a professional course falling upon the economic resources. The court emphasizing upon the necessity of maintaining status of legal education held that these aspects necessarily flowing from Articles 21 and 39A of the Constitution were totally lost sight of by the Government when it denied the grant-in-aid to the recognized private law colleges as was afforded to other faculties. The State has abdicated the duty enjoined on it by the relevant provisions of the Constitution as aforesaid. Accordingly, the Court directed the Government to extend grant-in-aid scheme to Govt. recognized private law colleges on the same criteria on which such grants were given to other faculties viz. Arts, Science, Commerce, Engineering and Medicine from the Academic Year 1995. Under sub-section (1) of S.7, educational institutions cannot claim grant-in-aid from the government as a matter of right i.e. to say on an application moved by an NGEI for grant of aid, it is not incumbent on the government to grant aid to such an institution if reasonable ground exists for not granting aid to such an institution. However, the government cannot refuse grant arbitrarily or without there being any justiciable reason. However, the government cannot refuse grant arbitrarily or without there being any justiciable reason. In the present case all the petitioners have been allocated grant-in-aid. The question really is whether once the aid is sanctioned, the sanctioning authority has a power to fix it exercising its own discretion or the grant has to be made as provided under sub-sections (3) and (4) of S.7 of the Act read with the Rules and in the matter of quantum of grant in aid no discretion is left with the sanctioning authority. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners are enjoying grant-in-aid from the government. From the scheme of the Rules, it appear that the assessment of annual recurring grant would be sanctioned on the basis of estimated expenditure of the current year, and the institutions shall be categorized under advice of the grant-in-aid Committee and would be allowed grant-in-aid. 20. R.13(2) speaks of Approved expenditure to be arrived at according to these Rules and such other instructions that may be issued from time to time. R.13(3) speaks of categorizations of the institutions under advise of the grant-in-aid Committee and to be allowed grant-in-aid as:- Category- A 80% of the approved expenditure of the previous year plus likely annual increment of staff. B 70% C 60% D 50% Special Category 90% R.14(a) includes actual salary, and provident fund contribution not exceeding 8.33% in respect of teaching and non-teaching staff, apart from the other approved expenditures as laid down in R.14. "Salary" is defined in S.2(r) of the Act which means the aggregate of the emoluments of an employee including dearness allowance or any other allowance or relief for the time being payable to him but does not include compensatory allowance. The extended definition of salary provides for aggregate of emoluments received by the teacher which also includes all allowances excluding the compensatory allowance and also extended to the relief for the time being payable to the teacher. The selection scale given to the teacher shall certainly fall within the four corners of the definition of "Salary". The extended definition of salary provides for aggregate of emoluments received by the teacher which also includes all allowances excluding the compensatory allowance and also extended to the relief for the time being payable to the teacher. The selection scale given to the teacher shall certainly fall within the four corners of the definition of "Salary". Although S.7 of the Act provides that no aid shall be claimed by an institution as a matter of right, once it is decided to grant aid under S.7(3) of the Act, the sanctioning authority is to sanction and distribute to a recognized institution aid from time to time in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed. S.7(4) of the Act provides that the aid may cover such part of the expenditure of the institution as may be prescribed. S.7(3) read with S.7 (4) makes it clear that the aid which has to be granted to a recognized institution shall cover the estimated expenditure of the current year and the approved expenditure as provided under R.14 of the Rules. Once it is decided by the Government to provide grant-in-aid in accordance with Ss.7(3) and 7(4) of the Act it leaves no room for the sanctioning authority to exercise its discretion to grant or not to grant the aid in regard to the items covered under Ss.7(3) and 7 (4) of the Act. Selection scale being salary, once the State Government had decided to grant aid to an NGEI, it will form the part of the grant-in-aid and thus the State Government in the eventuality of sanctioning the grant will pay for the same in accordance with the percentage prescribed to the category in which the NGEIs is placed. 21. It is then submitted by the counsel for petitioners that teachers of NGEIs are not entitled for leave encashment. There is nothing in the Act or the Rules providing for leave encashment to the teachers on their retirement. The relevant portion of R.47(2) of the Rules reads as under– “2. Teaching staff– (a) Privilege leave is not admissible to the members of teaching staff, whether temporary or permanent, in respect of duty performed in any calendar year, in which they avail themselves of the full vacation, except to the extent indicated under clause (b) of the sub-rule. The relevant portion of R.47(2) of the Rules reads as under– “2. Teaching staff– (a) Privilege leave is not admissible to the members of teaching staff, whether temporary or permanent, in respect of duty performed in any calendar year, in which they avail themselves of the full vacation, except to the extent indicated under clause (b) of the sub-rule. (b) The teaching staff in schools and colleges shall be entitled to fifteen days/privilege leave in a calendar year. The leave account shall be credited with fifteen days privilege leave immediately after expiry of every calendar year. The grant of privilege leave shall be subjected to the following conditions– (i) Eight days privilege leave out of fifteen days in a calendar year, shall qualify for carry forward of balance to the next year. (ii) Rest/seven days privilege leave, our of fifteen days in a calendar year shall if not availed of, during the calendar year in which it is credited to leave-account, shall lapse at the end of the calendar year. (c) The teaching staff appointed during a calendar year shall be allowed privilege leave @ 1-1 days for each completed months of the service immediately after the expiry of that calendar year subject to the condition laid down in clause (b) above in proportion of 8:7 respectively.” Thus, there is a provision for accumulation of privilege leaves. Admittedly the teachers working in government educational institutions are entitled for encashment of privilege leave on their retirement. By virtue of S.29 of the Act the teachers of NGEIs are entitled for the similar scale of pay and allowances except compensatory allowance it being the post of grant-in-aid, therefore, whatever allowances the teachers of government educational institutions are entitled to, would also be available to the teachers of NGEIs. Leave encashment is an allowance and the teachers in the NGEIs would have the right to claim this allowance. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.” The judgment of Full Bench of this Court has been finally affirmed by the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Senior Higher Secondary School, Lachhmangarh & Ors. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 346 . For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.” The judgment of Full Bench of this Court has been finally affirmed by the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Senior Higher Secondary School, Lachhmangarh & Ors. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 346 . It may further be noticed that out of three questions examined by the Full Bench of this court, no one addressed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on Question Nos.1 & 2 and addressed only to Question No.3. It would be relevant to quote the extract, relevant for the present purpose, ad infra:- “21. As we have held above, the expression “pay and allowances” in Section 29 read with the wider definition of the word “salary” in Section 2(r) of the Act has a very wide connotation. We have come to the conclusion that the expression includes benefit of leave encashment which is nothing but salary for the unavailed leave to the credit of the employee. 22. Section 16 confers rule-making power on the State Government to regular “conditions of service” of employees of aided institutions. The section specifically confers power to frame rules regarding entitlement of leave. If leave salary is a kind of salary within the wide definition of “salary” under Section 2(r) the rules to regulate conditions of service of employees of aided institutions, must be so framed as to maintain parity in conditions of service in that regard with employees in government institutions. That is the mandate of Section 29 of the Act. The contention, therefore advanced that subject-matter of entitlement of leave encashment is covered by Section 16 of the State but is beyond the purview of Section 29 of the Act, is fallacious and has to be rejected. 23.While construing the provision under consideration, it is to be borne in mind that interpretation of a welfare legislation should be to promote education. The service conditions of the employees of the aided institutions are sought to be improved and brought on a par with those in government educational institutions to maintain educational standards. It has also to be borne in mind that our Constitution-makers have placed the field of education at a higher pedestal and granted it a special status. Various provisions of the Constitution deal with the aspect of advancement of education. It has also to be borne in mind that our Constitution-makers have placed the field of education at a higher pedestal and granted it a special status. Various provisions of the Constitution deal with the aspect of advancement of education. Primary education has been held to be a fundamental right in the decision of this Court in Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P., (1993) 1 SCC 645 and this aspect still holds the field despite the decision having been overruled on some other aspects in T.M.A.Pai Foundation V. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481 . To improve education, various State Governments grant aid to educational institutions and, by and large, teachers of aided private schools deserve to be treated on a par with teachers of government institutions to the extent possible. The provisions of these Acts deserve to be liberally interpreted in favour of the teaching class except where statute may compel otherwise. A statute of no other State has been brought to our notice where similar benefit has been denied to the teachers of the aided institutions to improve education. The service conditions of the teachers also deserve to be improved. 24. Article 21-A added to the Constitution makes education a fundamental right. 25. Having regard to the aforesaid, we find it difficult to hold that the High Court has committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the employee of the aided private educational institutions in question are entitled to the benefit of leave encashment on a par with employees of government institutions.” However, the controversy involved in the instant batch of appeals is that the employees of the Aided Institutions opted for appointment to Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service created by the Rules of 2010. On application of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 01.09.2006, their pay was required to be fixed in the revised pay-scales w.e.f. the aforesaid date and that resulted into accrual of arrears of pay for the employees who were inducted in Government service in terms of Rules, 2010 and also to other employees of the Non-Government Aided Educational Institutions. Obviously, in the ordinary course, the arrears of pay due to revision of pay-scales were required to be shared by the State Government in the form of grant-in-aid to the Non-Government Educational Institutions but under the impugned communication dt.08.11.2011, such liability was transferred by the Government to the Non-Government Educational Institutions in view of Cl.(vii) of R.5 of the Rules, 2010. Rules of 2010 have come into force by notification published in the official gazette on 01.12.2010 and after the employees are screened by the Screening Committee, they have been absorbed in the State Government w.e.f. 01.07.2011. Indisputably, if the Rules of 2010 would not have been introduced, the State Government was under obligation to release grant-in-aid against arrears of salary for the period commencing from 01.09.2006 onwards. Cl.(vii) of R.5 of the Rules, 2010 postulates that no arrears on any account whatsoever including arrears of salary, selection scale, Assured Career Progression or Career Advancement Scheme, etc. shall be paid by the State Government for the period prior to the date of joining by the employee to the State Government Voluntary Education Service. This appears to be one of the condition for appointment of the employees to the service created under the Rules of 2010 and it has been purposely made only for such of the employees to be absorbed in the Government employment who were employees of the Non-Government Aided Educational Institutions and working against the sanctioned & aided posts and no other mode of appointment has been prescribed in the Rules, 2010 and further the entire cadre created is a dying cadre i.e. on the day, the employee stands retired or superannuated or died while in service that post automatically stands abolished. While giving appointment to the service, an employee has to execute an undertaking in the prescribed Form-II, attached to Cl.(xi) of R.5 of the Rules, 2010 that he voluntarily accepts all the terms & conditions of service prescribed under these Rules and agrees to serve in the Government Educational Institutions situated in the rural areas till attaining the age of superannuation. It, however, does not bar the employees to claim the same from the Educational Institutions where they were working prior to appointment under the Rules of 2010 and the resultant position is that Cl.(vii) of R.5 of the Rules, 2010 transfers liability of the State Government to the Institution concerned to pay arrears of salary and other approved expenditures to such employees from 01.09.2006 onwards, of which liability earlier was of the State Government in proportion to the aid sanctioned to the Non-Government Aided Institutions. Indisputably, the liability otherwise was of the State Government under the mandate of the provisions of the Act of 1989, as discussed and interpreted in detail by the Full Bench of this Court in S.R.Higher Secondary School (supra). In fact, by Cl.(vii) of R.5 of the Rules, 2010, the State Government has created a mode to escape itself from its financial liability, in overreaching the statutory liability, to sanction grant-in-aid to the Non-Government Educational Institutions while making payment of arrears of salary and other approved expenditures to the employees. As already referred, Cl.(vii) of R.5 of the Rules, 2010 is a condition for the employees not to claim arrears from the State Government but is not an impediment for the Non-Government Aided Educational Institutions where the employees concerned were earlier working to claim grant-in-aid from the State Government but at the same time, the Non-Government Aided Educational Institutions, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in S.R.Higher Secondary School (supra), has a right to receive grant-in-aid against arrears of salary of the employees working against sanctioned & aided posts till absorption/appointment of such employees to the service created under the Rules of 2010 under the Act, 1989 & Rules, 1993. In the event of such arrears of the employees, the Non-Government Educational Institutions, can certainly claim grant-in-aid to the extent sanctioned from the State Government and Cl.(vii) of R.5 of the Rules, 2010 nowhere restricts the Non-Government Educational Institutions from claiming grant-in-aid for making payment of arrears of salary and other approved expenditures to its employees, who have been subsequently absorbed by the State Government under the Rules, 2010. The decision circulated by the State Government, through the impugned communication dt.08.11.2011, as a matter of fact this being a settled principle of law that no statutory enactment can be made taking away the vested rights of the Institutions which has been accrued under the provisions of the Act, 1989 & Rules of 1993 framed thereunder and that to by a subordinate Legislation. In the present case, the Institutions being the aided Institutions, right has been accrued to claim grant-in-aid from the State Government to the extent sanctioned in relation to the arrears of salary payable to the employees on their fixation under the Rajasthan Civil Services (revised Pay Scales) Rules, 2008 became effective from 01.09.2006 and with reference to selection scales, pay & allowances and leave encashment under the Act, 1989 & Rules, 1993 obviously upto the period the employees of Aided Institutions are screened and finally absorbed in the State Government i.e. with effect from 01.07.2011 and after enactment of the Rules, 2010, the State Government has discontinued to sanction grant-in-aid to the Non-Government Recognized Institutions under the Act, 1989. In our considered view, Cl.(vii) of R.5 of Rules, 2010 has no application in regard to the Non-Government Educational Institutions under the scheme of the Act, 1989 & Rules, 1993 framed thereunder. To the extent of grant-in-aid sanctioned by the State Government to the Institutions against arrears of salary being approved expenditures, the Government is under legal obligation to sanction grant-in-aid and has to be paid to the employees of the Non-Government Aided Institutions under the Act, 1989 & Rules, 1993 framed thereunder, for which we have made a detailed discussion in the earlier part of the judgment. However, Cl.(vii) of R.5 of the Rules, 2010 mandates the employees not to claim arrears from the State Government. However, Cl.(vii) of R.5 of the Rules, 2010 mandates the employees not to claim arrears from the State Government. However, the scheme of Act, 1989 and Rules, 1993 framed thereunder provides that the privity of contract is between the Institutions and the employees for payment of salary and all other approved expenditures and the State Government has to reimburse to the Non-Government Aided Institutions and there is no restriction/prohibition on the Institution to claim arrears from the Government towards salary and other approved expenditures, as contemplated u/R.14 of the Rules, 1993 and Cl.(vii) of R.5 of the Rules, 2010 will not come in the way of the Institutions in claiming grant-in-aid to the extent sanctioned by the State Government and it can be further noticed that u/Sec.31(2) of the Act, 1989 in the peculiar circumstances where the management of the Aided Institution fails to pay the salary of its employees as referred to in sub-sec.(1) or in Sec.29 of the Act, the Director of Education or any officer authorized by him holds authority to deduct such salary from the amount payable as the next grant-in-aid or, if necessary, from the amount of any subsequent grant-in-aid and pay directly to the staff such salary on behalf of the management and such payment shall be deemed to be a payment of money to the management of the Institution itself. Thus, the grant-in-aid can be sanctioned and paid directly by the State Government to the employees of the Aided Educational Institutions in the exigency, if arises, as being postulated, by the Legislature in its wisdom, u/Sec.31(2) of the Act, 1989 and in our considered view the financial liability, which has been created upon the State Government and settled by this court, of which we have made reference supra receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government against the approved expenditures under the Act, 1989 and Rules, 1993 framed thereunder, at least for the period till the employees are absorbed in the State Government under the Rules, 2010, w.e.f. 01.07.2010 remained on the sanctioned & aided posts in the Non-Government Aided Institutions, cannot be abrogated or absolved by creating a subordinate Legislation by virtue of Cl.(vii) and u/C.(xi) of R.5 of the Rules, 2010. At the same time, it may be noticed that such of the employees who were in service of the Non-Government Aided Institution and working against the sanctioned & aided post when the Rules, 2010 came into force either retired before screened and appointed in the State Government or are not inclined to join service under the Rules, 2010, R.5(vii) indisputably, shall not come in their way and the State Government is under legal obligation to sanction grant-in-aid and has to part with its share against arrears of salary and other approved expenditures provided u/R.14 of the Rules, 1993 for such employees and two different yardsticks/standards cannot be adopted for those who joined service under the Rules, 2010 and others who are not inclined to join, as observed and in our considered view, sub-R.(vii) of R.5 of the Rules, 2010, has no application and entitlement/right of the Institution accrued cannot be divested or abrogated by the State Government on creation of a subordinate Legislation and that is not permissible by law. The Single Bench of this Court has also examined the same controversy in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7134/20125 [Seth G.L.Bihani S.D.Sr.Secondary School & 3 Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.] decided on 17.05.2013 reported in 2013 (4) WLC (Raj.) 350 we have been told that intra-court appeal has been preferred by the State Government which is pending before the main seat at Jodhpur. But after we have gone through the judgment, we are in full conformity with the view expressed by the ld.Single Judge dt.17.05.2013. It is admitted before the court that share/contribution of the Institution which is payable to the employees has been finally paid by the Institution to each of the employee and this fact has been admitted that it is only the share of the State Government which is outstanding and payable to each of the employee absorbed in the State Government under Rules, 2010. As regards alternative submission made by Mr.Inderjeet Singh, Additional Advocate General that until the payment is first made by the Institution, the State Government cannot be called upon for reimbursement in the ordinary course. Certainly, it is the Institution who has to first make payment to the employees and then claim reimbursement from the State Government. As regards alternative submission made by Mr.Inderjeet Singh, Additional Advocate General that until the payment is first made by the Institution, the State Government cannot be called upon for reimbursement in the ordinary course. Certainly, it is the Institution who has to first make payment to the employees and then claim reimbursement from the State Government. But, in these peculiar facts & circumstances, when the employees of the Non-Government Aided Institutions are either absorbed by the State Government under the Rules, 2010 w.e.f. 01.07.2011 or retired when the Rules, 2010 came into force or declined to join service in the State Government and the matter pertains to arrears of salary and other dues which are the approved expenditure payable to each of the employee u/R.14 of the Rules, 1993 and accrued to each of them under the Act, 1989 & Rules, 1993 framed thereunder, taking note of Sec.31(2) of the Act, 1989 this court considers it appropriate that let the Non-Government Recognized Institutions shall prepare due-drawn statement of each of the employee of Non-Government Aided Recognized Institutions in regard to their arrears of salary and other dues which are the approved expenditures to the extent of grant-in-aid and the same be sent to the State Government and the State Government after its due verification from their records make payment of arrears to each of the employee (since now being posted in the State Government) who are members of the Rules, 2010 or to other employees similarly situated under intimation to the concerned Non-Government Recognized Institution. It is informed to this court that employees in general who had earlier served in the Non-Government Aided Educational Institutions and have now been absorbed by the State Government under the Rules, 2010 or such employees who have either retired or have not inclined to join service under the Rules, 2010 for their arrears either in respect of the arrears of salary or fixation on account of revision of pay-scales under the Rules, 1998 or in respect of other approved expenditures u/R.14 of the Rules, 1993 have approached the Non-Government Educational Tribunal for their legitimate claim which has been finally settled upto the Apex Court but the Educational Institutions are making payment of their own share and to the extent of grant-in-aid to be sanctioned by the State Government. There is a litigation going on at various levels and the Educational Institutions are taking their defence that claims of the employees are approved expenditures which have been finally settled by the Apex Court and their contributions have already been paid to the employees and the State Government to the extent sanction the grant-in-aid, it may not be possible for the Institutions to pay. At the same time, the State Government is taking its defence that although these are approved expenditures and the entitlement of the employees has not been disputed and the defence of the State Government is that it is the Non-Government Aided Educational Institution who has to pay all arrears towards approved expenditures and the State Government is protected not to pay against arrears to employees in view of R.5(vii) of the Rules, 2010. It is also informed to this court that the State Government by an amendment u/Sec.7(1) of the Act, 1989, discontinued sanctioned of grant-in-aid to the Non-Government Aided Institutions vide Notification dt.25.03.2011 which came to be published in the official gazette on 27.03.2011 and after the employees of Aided Institutions are absorbed in the State Government, grievance of the employees was that as long as they continue to serve in the Non-Government Aided Institutions, the State Government is under an obligation to release grant-in-aid to the extent sanctioned for the employees serving in the Non-Government Aided Institutions. In those batch of Writ Petition No.829/2012 [Arti Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan] along with other writ petitions came to be decided by the Division Bench of this court vide judgment dt.16.04.2013 finally held that the action of the Government in withdrawing grant-in-aid, so far as it relates to the posts in which the teaching and nonteaching staff of the Non-Government Aided Educational Institutions are still continuing, is adjuged to be illegal and ultravires of the Act, 1989 and mandated the State Government for such of the teaching/non-teaching staff working in the Non-Government Aided Institutions, the State Government is under an obligation to the extent sanction grant-in-aid and release the same to the Institution but we have been informed that judgment of the Division Bench of this court came to be challenged by the State Government in Special Leave to Appeal and interim protection has been granted by the Apex Court. The Special Appeals filed by the State Government are without substance and accordingly dismissed and taking note of the Sec.31(2) of the Act, 1989 we direct the Non-Government Educational Institutions to prepare due drawn statement of each of the employees of their Institution who have worked against sanctioned & aided posts in regard to their arrears of salary and other dues which are approved expenditures to the extent of grant-in-aid and the same be sent to the State Government and the State Government after its due verification from their records will make payment of arrears to each of the employee who either have now become members of Rules, 2010 or have retired or left the job (upto the period one has worked) and to other employees similarly situated under intimation to the concerned Non-Government Recognized Institution. However, it may not remain confined to such of the employees who are covered under the present litigation and since the employees of the State Government and the Non-Government Aided Institution are under litigation at various levels either before the ld.Tribunal or in this Court and after this issue being settled by us, we consider it appropriate that let this order be made applicable mutatis mutandis to all such employees who are similarly situated, in the manner as directed by this court and indicated above. The Non-Government Aided Institutions shall ensure compliance of this order within two months and the State Government shall ensure compliance in letter & spirit within two months thereafter by making actual payment to the employee of the Non-Government Aided Institutions. With these directions, all the special appeals stand disposed of, in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.