ORDER : 1. The petition herein is directed against an award/order dated 04.12.2002 (Annex.3) passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby an application of respondent No.2 (Raj Kumar Kankariya), an ex-employee of the petitioner, filed six years after having left employment, was allowed directing the petitioner to accord certain financial benefits, pertaining to short duration of one & half years when he was in service. 2. In fact, the controversy and succinct facts have been more appropriately summed up vide an order dated 01.02.2007 passed by a Coordinate Bench earlier seized of the matter, presided over by Govind Mathur, J. (as he then was in this court) and being apposite, same is reproduced herein below: "By this petition for writ, a challenge is given to the award dated 04.12.2002 whereby the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur while accepting the application preferred by the respondent No.2 under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Institutions Act, 1989 ordered for grant of revised pay scale and bonus to him from the date of his initial appointment. The respondent No.2 was appointed in the petitioner institution as Teacher Grade III and thereafter he resigned from his service on 10.02.1990. The Government of Rajasthan revised the pay scales and also decided to award bonus to its employees under its order dated 03.03.90 that was effected from 01.09.88. The respondent No.2 by the application under Section 21 of the Act of 1989 claimed for revision of pay scale and grant of bonus in pursuant to the order dated 03.03.90 w.e.f. 01.09.88. While giving challenge to the order aforesaid, it is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal without considering the objection raised by the petitioner pertaining to maintainabilty of the application after an inordinate delay of more than 6 years, accepted the claim of the petitioner. It is further stated that the Tribunal without determining the fact as to applicability of the Act of 1989 upon the respondent No.2 passed the order impugned. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admit. No need to issue notice afresh as the respondents are represented by their counsel. Heard learned counsel for the parties on stay application also. From the facts and the legal position involved, I am considered opinion that the petitioner has a strong prima facie case in his favour. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admit. No need to issue notice afresh as the respondents are represented by their counsel. Heard learned counsel for the parties on stay application also. From the facts and the legal position involved, I am considered opinion that the petitioner has a strong prima facie case in his favour. The issue involved pertains to grant monitory benefits to the respondent and, therefore, that can be given to him even after dismissal of the petitioner, if the petition stands dismissed. On the other hand, it shall be difficult for the institution to recover the amount, if this Court does not stay operation and effect of the award impugned. Accordingly, the application for interim relief is allowed and operation and effect of the order dated 04.12.2002 (Annexure 3) passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur is stayed." 3. Subsequent to passing of the aforesaid order, counter-affidavit was filed by respondent No.2, wherein not only observations of court, supra, have been given a complete short shrift, but even otherwise, no explanation worthy of acceptance or otherwise plausible has been offered. 4. Even today, the questions that remain unanswered by the respondent no.2 are :- a). As to how, could he have sought benefit of bonus and revised pay scale after summarily abandoning/resigning from his service on his own volition without raising any claim at the relevant time? b). How was his application maintainable before the learned Tribunal after an inordinate delay of six years ? 5. Without delving deep into the merits of the case, suffice for the purpose of adjudication of the instant writ petition, that in the absence of any plausible explanation qua aforesaid two queries, either in the course of arguments before this Court or in the counter-affidavit or even before the learned Tribunal below, the observations made by this court in its interim order dated 01.02.2007, ibid, deserve to be made absolute. It is so ordered. 6. As an upshot, I am of the view that the application filed by respondent No.2, was not only barred by limitation but was even otherwise also, sans any merit. Resultantly, the impugned award dated 04.12.2002 rendered by the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. 7. The instant writ petition is accordingly allowed, with consequences to follow.