Order : (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.) 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned judgment dated 15.07.2005 passed by Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) by which the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1989”) has been allowed and a direction has been issued to the respondents to make the payment of amount of due leave encashment to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal to the extent of non-grant of interest on delayed payment of the amount of leave encashment. Learned counsel submits that unnecessarily the aforesaid amount was delayed by the respondents without any justified reason, hence under these circumstances, the Tribunal should have passed an order granting interest to the petitioner on the aforesaid amount. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-management opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that two different applications under Section 21 of the Act of 1989 was submitted by the petitioner; one for gratuity and other for payment of leave encashment amount. Learned counsel submits that the applications were allowed and in the case of gratuity interest was awarded, but in the instant case, the interest was not awarded against delayed payment of amount of leave encashment, as the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant interest. Learned counsel submits that the issue involved in this petition has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the batch of writ petitions with the lead case of Managing Committee, Bhartiya Shiksha Prachar Samiti & Another Versus Bhoopal Singh Babel & others while deciding D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.1498/2014 at the Principal Seat at Jodhpur vide order dated 01.08.2016. Learned counsel submits that the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhoopal Singh Babel (supra) has been followed by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Managing Committee, Sh. Hanwant Sr. Secondary School Versus Rajasthan Non-Government Education Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur and Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11093/2015 vide order dated 29.11.2016 . Hanwant Sr. Secondary School Versus Rajasthan Non-Government Education Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur and Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11093/2015 vide order dated 29.11.2016 . Learned counsel submits that, therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error in not granting interest on the delayed payment of leave encashment amount to the petitioner, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. The issue involved in this petition is that whether Tribunal has any jurisdiction to award interest on amount of leave encashment to the employees of the aided educational institutions in exercise of its powers contained under Section 21 of the Act of 1989? 6. The aforesaid issue has already been answered and decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhoopal Singh Babel (supra) with the following observations:- “3. The only ground urged before us by counsel for the appellants is that the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal')created under the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 has no power to grant interest on leave encashment dues. Being a statutory Tribunal, it can only grant relief to the extent that it has been vested with statutory powers. 4. Counsel for the respondents point out that leave encashment has been unduly delayed. 5. The second submission on behalf of the appellants that the Tribunal could not have directed payment of interest on gratuity dues either, does not appeal to us. Rule 82 of the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-aid and Service Conditions etc.) Rules, 1993 provides that gratuity shall be admissible to the employees of an unaided educational institution as permissible under thePayment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as amended from time to time. Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act provides for payment of statutory interest on gratuity in specified circumstances. Naturally the appellant-Institution will have to pay the statutory interest on gratuity as may be applicable under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act.” 7. The aforesaid view taken by the Division Bench has been further followed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Managing Committee, Sh. Hanwant Sr. Naturally the appellant-Institution will have to pay the statutory interest on gratuity as may be applicable under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act.” 7. The aforesaid view taken by the Division Bench has been further followed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Managing Committee, Sh. Hanwant Sr. Secondary School (supra) and it has been held as under:- “So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent no.2 based on the provisions of the Act of 1978 are concerned, in view of the Division Bench judgment in the case of Bhartiya Shiksha Prachar Samiti (supra), wherein, by implication the award of interest on the amounts of arrears and leave encashment was held as beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the provisions of the Act of 1978 on their own force cannot be made applicable. Besides the above, the power under the Act of 1978 is discretionary inasmuch as the Act provides that if the Court thinks fit, it may allow interest. As in similar nature matters, as already noticed herein before, the interest has been declined, no exceptional feature has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 to take a different view and, therefore, the prayer in this regard is rejected. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed. The judgment dated 12/5/2015passed by the Tribunal is set aside to the extent it provides for payment of interest on enhanced D.A., leave encashment dues and arrears based on revised pay scales, however, the direction to the extent of payment of interest on the amount of gratuity is upheld, the respondent no.2 would be entitled to interest @6% p.a. on the amount of gratuity payable to her. The amount of D.A., leave encashment, arrears based on revised pay scales to the extent of its share and amount of gratuity and interest on the amount of gratuity shall be paid to the respondent no.2 by the petitioner Institution within a period of three months. The amount, if any, paid to the respondent no.2 or deposited by the petitioner Institution with the Executing Court would be adjusted towards the amount payable to the respondent no.2. The amount, if any, paid to the respondent no.2 or deposited by the petitioner Institution with the Executing Court would be adjusted towards the amount payable to the respondent no.2. It is further directed that as laid down/directed by Division Bench in the case of Bhagwan Das Todi College (supra), the respondent no.3/State would after due verification from the records based on the information supplied by the petitioner Institution will make payment of arrears to the respondent no.2 within two months of receipt of information and it shall not be pre-requisite for the Institution to first make payment and then seek reimbursement from the respondent State. The order shall also stand modified to the extent of above direction to the State/respondent no.3.” 8. Since the issue involved in this petition has already been set at rest by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhoopal Singh Babel (supra), wherein it has been held that Tribunal has no power to award interest on the due amount of P.L. encashment hence this Court finds no valid reason to take a different view. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. All applications (pending, if any) also stand dismissed.