ORDER : 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned judgment dated 03.02.2010 passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (for short “the Tribunal”) by which application filed by respondent no. 1 under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”) has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to fix the pay scale of the respondent under the pay scale of 8000-13500 w.e.f. 01.09.1996 under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules 1998 (for short “Rules of 1998”) with arrears. Further a direction has been issued to pay UGC senior pay scale as well as selection scale in terms of schemes and payment of privilege leaves along with interest @ 6% p.a. with effect from the date of filing the application and other directions have also been issued. 2. The petitioner is a philanthropic institution and the respondent was appointed as Librarian on 15.10.1975 by the petitioner college. The respondent retired from the said post on 31.10.2002 after attaining the age of superannuation. He submitted an application under Section 21 of the Act which has been partly allowed by the Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated 03.02.2010. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent was treated as ineligible on the post of Librarian by the Director, College Education vide order dated 04.04.1994 and the said order was never challenged by the respondent. Counsel submits that the application filed by the respondent under Section 21 of the Act was not maintainable in view of Sections 18 and 19 of the Act. The respondent could have filed appeal under Section 19 and the limitation was 30 days but instead of filing appeal, the respondent has submitted application under Section 21 after lapse of the period of limitation. Counsel submits that otherwise also the respondent retired on 31.10.2002 but he filed time barred application. Counsel submits that though no limitation period is prescribed under the Act but the limitation period was three years under Article 137 of the Limitation Act and the application has been filed by the respondent after three years. Counsel submits that no opportunity of cross-examination was provided to the petitioner and the provision contained under Section 25 of the Act was not followed which has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. Counsel submits that no opportunity of cross-examination was provided to the petitioner and the provision contained under Section 25 of the Act was not followed which has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Tagore Bal Niketan Madhyamik Vidyalaya vs. State of Rajasthan, 2018 (1) WLC (Raj) 19. Counsel submits that no calculation has been done by the Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment, hence it would not be possible for the petitioner to calculate the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that no order under Section 18 of the Act was passed by the petitioner/institution, hence no appeal under Section 19 was maintainable. Counsel submits that for redressal of the grievance of the respondent, the only remedy was to file an application under Section 21 of the Act. Counsel submits that the respondent was raising his grievance to the petitioner by filing repeated representations. When no heed was paid, then he approached the Tribunal and submitted the application under Section 21 of the act, which has been rightly allowed. Counsel submits that there is no force in the argument that the respondent was not eligible for appointment on the post of Librarian because the Director, College Education has said so in the year 1994. Counsel submits that the respondent worked on the said post w.e.f. 15.10.1975 to 31.10.2002. Counsel submits that the services of the respondent remained unblemished during this period and whole salary and retiral dues were paid to him at the time of his retirement. Counsel submits that when the benefits of pay scales, selection scales and payment of leave encashment were not extended to him under UGC pay scales, he approached the Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. Counsel submits that when the benefits of pay scales, selection scales and payment of leave encashment were not extended to him under UGC pay scales, he approached the Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. In support of his submissions he has placed reliance on the following judgment: (i) Union of India and Others vs. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 (ii) Rajasthan University and College Physical Education Teachers’ Association and Another vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 608/1982, dated 08.10.1990 (iii) Tara Chand and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4956/2008, dated 20.08.2010 (iv) Kailash Chandra Ghusar vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, SB Civil Writ Petition No. 20646/2012, dated 20.11.2017 5. Heard and considered the rival submissions. 6. The undisputed fact is that the basic grievance of the respondent before the Tribunal was for getting the fixation in the pay scale and allowances as UGC pay scale given to the Librarians in government colleges. As per Section 29 of the Act and Rule 34 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-In-Aid and Service Conditions Etc.) Rules, 1993, the scales of pay and allowances of the employees working in Government or Non-Government Education Institutions are same. This fact is also not in dispute that the Government of Rajasthan issued a circular on 24.04.1993 and 05.08.1993 and recommended for payment of upgraded pay scale to the Librarians as per UGC pay scales, who have completed 8 and 16 years of service. Even this court in the case of Laxmi Narain Sharma and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2002 (1) RLR 771 , has held in Para 16 as under: “As a result of the aforesaid discussions, this writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. It is hereby declared that the petitioners are entitled for the upgraded UGC pay scales i.e. Rs. 700-1600 w.e.f. 01.04.1980. In case, after 01.04.1980, this upgraded pay scales are revised, the petitioners shall also be entitled for the revised pay scales. The respondents are directed to revise and fix the pay of all the petitioners in the pay scale of Rs. 700-1600 w.e.f. 01.04.1980 or from the date of their appointment whichever is later. In case, the pay scales are further revised, the respondents are directed to revise the pay of the petitioners as per the pay scales revised from time to time. 700-1600 w.e.f. 01.04.1980 or from the date of their appointment whichever is later. In case, the pay scales are further revised, the respondents are directed to revise the pay of the petitioners as per the pay scales revised from time to time. The arrears of the fixation of the pay are to be determined and paid to the petitioners accordingly. The petitioners shall also be entitled to get interest on the arrears on pay fixation @ 12% per-annum from the date of filing of the writ petition i.e. 01.12.1998. The amount of interest which is payable to the petitioners on the arrears pay fixation shall also be determined by the respondents. All this exercise are to be undertaken and completed by the respondents within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.” 7. It is worthy to note here that the judgment of Laxmi Narain (supra) was upheld in the SLP submitted by the State before Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 15.01.2010. Hence, the Tribunal held that the respondent is entitled for getting senior pay and selection scale. 8. The main grievance of the petitioner is that when the Department of College Education found the petitioner as ineligible on the post of Librarian then there was no occasion available with the Tribunal to extend to him the benefits claimed by him. The fact is correct that an endorsement was made by the Director, College Education as “Ayogya” in its letter dated 04.04.1994 but still the petitioner allowed the respondent to continue with the services. The respondent was allowed to remain in service w.e.f. 15.10.1975 till his date of retirement i.e. 31.10.2002. No action was taken by the petitioner to remove him from the post of Librarian and the respondent was allowed to continue his services with the Institution till his age of superannuation and salary and retiral dues were paid to him. Hence, the petitioner is estopped by its own action and cannot be allowed to take this technical objection. The services of the respondent remained continued and unblemished in these 27 years. 9. This court finds no force in the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the application under Section 21 of the Act was not maintainable, while appeal under Section 19 was maintainable. The services of the respondent remained continued and unblemished in these 27 years. 9. This court finds no force in the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the application under Section 21 of the Act was not maintainable, while appeal under Section 19 was maintainable. It is worthwhile to mention here that appeal under Section 19 of the Act lies against an order of removal, dismissal or reduction in rank of an employee is passed under Section 18 of the Act, while in this case no such order was passed by the petitioner Institution against the respondent employee, hence there was no occasion available with the respondent to file appeal under Section 19 of the Act. For redressal of the grievance of the respondent, the only remedy available to him was to file an application under Section 21 of the Act and rightly he has filed the same before the Tribunal. 10. For convenience, Section 21 of the Act is quoted here: “Application to the Tribunal: (1) Where there is any dispute between the management of a recognised institution and any of its employee with respect to the conditions of service, the management of the employee may make an application in the prescribed manner to the Tribunal and the decision of the Tribunal thereon shall be final. (2) Any dispute of the nature referred to in Sub-Section (1) and any appeal of the nature referred to in Section 19, pending before the State Government or any officer of the State Government immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall, as soon as may be after such commencement; by transferred to the Tribunal for its decision.” 11. No doubt in Sub-Section (1) of Section 21 of the Act, the Management of the employee is authorised to make application before the Tribunal, but if one party has been given a right to move an application, the other party has an implied right to seek remedy under the same provision and because of this reason, if employee of the aided Institution has moved an application under Section 21 of the Act before the Tribunal and on the said application any order is passed by the Tribunal, that order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. 12. 12. Thus, it is held that the Tribunal has not committed any error by entertaining and deciding the application of the respondent filed Under Section 21 of the Act. 13. For getting the benefits of pay and selection scale and other service benefits, the respondent submitted various representations to the petitioner management for redressal of his grievance but when no heed was paid, then for this recurring wrong the respondent approached the Tribunal by way of filing the application under Section 21 of the Act. 14. While dealing with the issue of delay, the Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Para 7 as under: “To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re-opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or re-fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.” 15. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.” 15. Though no limitation has been prescribed under Section 21 of the Act but as per Article 137 of the Limitation Act, the limitation for filing an application is three years. The petitioner retired on 31.10.2002 and he submitted the application on 25.09.2003, when no heed was paid to his representations by the petitioner/Institution. The Tribunal has discussed the issue of limitation by giving sound reasoning, which warrants no interference. 16. Now the next question for consideration of this court is, whether the principles of natural justice have been violated or not? The counsel for the petitioner submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent. The application submitted under Section 21 of the Act was generally decided in summary manner on the basis of the documents, affidavits and counter affidavits submitted by the parties to the litigation. That is why the application in question filed by the respondent was decided by the Tribunal. It is worthy to note here that no such prayer was ever made before the Tribunal that petitioner wanted to cross-examine with the respondent or any of the witnesses. There is no reason to raise this plea now before this court. Hence, the principles of natural justice have not been violated because the impugned judgment has been passed by the Tribunal after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 17. The court finds no force in the submissions of the petitioner that the arrears of pay and selection scale have not been calculated by the Tribunal. There was no occasion before the Tribunal to calculate the arrears of the benefits extended to the respondent. Now it is between the petitioner and respondent to calculate the arrears as per the length of service of the respondent as per Rules, and proceed accordingly. 18. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 19. 18. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 19. Stay application and all applications (pending if any) also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.