JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1.The present bunch of Special Appeals arise out of the common order dated 26.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby a batch of writ petitions was decided directing the appellant State to pay the interest as directed by the Tribunal on the delayed payment of Grant-in-Aid, therefore, the present appeals are being decided by this common judgment. 2. For deciding the controversy involved in the present batch of appeals, briefly noted facts of the case are that the respondent institutions being aggrieved against the judgment passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) on various dates and the Execution Petitions being pending before the Civil courts, filed the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge. In the writ petitions, it was stated that the respondents therein, who are teachers/employees of the institutions approached the Tribunal for payment of due amount of gratuity, leave encashment and other payments relating to the arrears of pay based on revision of pay scales. The case of the teachers/employees were decided by the Tribunal. Against the order passed by the learned Tribunal giving direction of payment of interest on the amount due to the teachers/employees, the writ petitions were preferred by the respondent institutions. The writ petitions filed by the respondent Institutions were decided by the learned Single Bench vide its order dated 26.08.2022 whereby a direction was issued for payment of interest to be borne by the State Government though interest on the amount of gratuity was was not ordered to be paid. Aggrieved by this order dated 26.08.2022, the present batch of appeals was filed by the appellant State. 3. Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, learned Additional Advocate General vehemently submitted that there is no delay in making payment of the amount of Grant-in-Aid to the respondent- institutions because when the applications for claim in the prescribed Format were preferred by the respondent-Institutions to the State Government, the same were processed and the amount admissible in accordance with the rules was released to the respondent institutions for payment to its employees. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that since there was no delay on the part of the State Government in releasing the payment, therefore, the liability of making payment of interest cannot be fastened upon the State Government. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that since there was no delay on the part of the State Government in releasing the payment, therefore, the liability of making payment of interest cannot be fastened upon the State Government. He, therefore, prays that the present batch of appeals may be allowed and the order dated 26.08.2022 passed by learned Single Judge may be quashed and set aside to that extent. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- institutions vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned Additional Advocate General. He submits that repeated requests/reminders were sent to the State Government for making payment of Grant-in-Aid to the respondent-Institutions so that they can make further payments to their employees. Learned counsel submits that since the amount were not released by the State Government, therefore, writ petitions as well as contempt petitions were also filed before this Court. Learned counsel submits that after specific direction having been issued by this court, the amount due was paid by the State Government. To buttress his contentions, learned counsel for the respondent- institutions has relied upon the judgment dated 13.03.2018 passed by Division Bench of this Court in a batch of appeals led by D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.178/2017 (Mohan Giri Goswami v/s Managing Committee, Rajasthan Mahil Parishad & Ors.) and judgment dated 22.01.2021 passed by Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in a batch of appeals led by D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1439/2019 (Director, Secondary Education v/s Managing Committee, Shree Shwetambar Jain Secondary School & Anr.) . However, learned counsel for the respondent-institutions is not in a position to give us the actual dates on which their claim applications were preferred before the State Government as per Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutional Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of `1993’) for making payment of Grant-in-Aid. 5. Learned counsel very fairly submits that he may be directed to submit proof of the same before the Executing Court where the Execution Proceedings are pending. He further submits that if he is able to satisfy the Executing Court that the claim applications for grant of Grant-in-Aid remained pending before the State Government beyond a period of 60 days, the State Government will be liable to pay the interest on delayed payment of Grant-in- Aid to the respondent-institutions. He further submits that if he is able to satisfy the Executing Court that the claim applications for grant of Grant-in-Aid remained pending before the State Government beyond a period of 60 days, the State Government will be liable to pay the interest on delayed payment of Grant-in- Aid to the respondent-institutions. He fairly submits that although there is no period of limitation prescribed for making the aforesaid payment by the State Government but the period beyond 60 days appears to be reasonable for award of interest on the delayed payment. 6. We have considered the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case and the impugned order dated 26.08.2022. Since, the controversy in the present appeals is in a narrow compass relating to the fact as whether the respondent institutions are entitled for interest on delayed payment of the claims submitted by them before the State Government, it is necessary to place on record the actual dates on which the respondent-institutions filed their claim applications before the State Government in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules of 1993 and the actual dates on which the amount of Grant-in-Aid was disbursed by the State Government after a period of 60 days. 7. It is also noted that there is no period prescribed under the Rules of 1993 for payment of the amount of Grant-in-Aid to the respective respondent-institutions on their claim applications. However, this court feels that a period of 60 days appears to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. It is also noted that there is no period prescribed under the Rules of 1993 for payment of the amount of Grant-in-Aid to the respective respondent-institutions on their claim applications. However, this court feels that a period of 60 days appears to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Since, the execution petitions are still pending before the respective Civil Court, therefore, ends of justice will meet, if the present batch of Special Appeals is disposed of by modifying the order dated 26.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench to the extent that if the respondent-Institutions place on record the exact dates of filing their claim applications before the State Government for Grant-in-Aid by placing cogent evidence and the State Government places on record, the exact dates of disbursement of the amount made in favour of the respondent- institutions and thereafter, if it is observed by the Executing Court that the amount of disbursement made by the State Government is after a period of 60 days from the date of filing claim applications by the respondent-institutions, the respondent- institutions will be entitled to claim interest on that delayed payment. The Executing Court will pass the necessary orders for payment of interest to be made by the State Government, if the amount pursuant to the claim applications has been disbursed after a period of 60 days as mentioned above. 8. Ordered accordingly. 9. It is made clear that the amount received by the respondent- institutions shall be disbursed to their employees. 10. The Stay Applications and other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.