Sobhagya Singh Shekhawat And Ors. Etc vs. State Of Rajasthan And Ors. Etc. Through Its Secretary To The Government Department Of Education

.' IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6601-6603 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NOS.17669-17671/2014))

SOBHAGYA SINGH SHEKHAWAT & ORS. ETC.

Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. ETC. ETC.

Respondent(s)

O R D E R

		Leave granted.<br>Subsequent to our orders dated 12.5.2016<br>and 13.7.2016, Respondent No.1/State Government
	has now filed a compliance affidavit through<br>the<br>Director,	Secondary		Education,	Bikane
r,
ate	Rajasthan.		The<br>Respondent			No.1/St
	his<br>submissions	Government is represented by Mr. Tushar Mehta,<br>learned Additional Solicitor General, who in<br>brought<br>to<br>our				notice
that	after	stoppage	of	the	grant-in-aid		to
the
	introduction	School Management from 2008 by virtue of the<br>Rajasthan			Voluntary
Rural	Education	Service		Rules,	2010		(hereinafte
r
only	referred	to<br>as	'the	2010	Rules'),		the
	for	other scope for the aided teachers was to seek<br>absorption	in	the	State	Service
and,	therefore,	the		grant-in-aid		could	not
be
	teachers	favourably considered in respect of the aided<br>fall<br>under<br>the		definition
of<br>Signature Not Verified	employee	who<br>under	Rule	2(g)	of	the	Rajasth
an<br>Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD<br>Date: 2016.07.23<br>s	Non-Government		Educational			Institution
11:52:02 IST<br>Reason:
	(Recognition,		Grant-in-aid			and	Serv
ice	Conditions	etc.)		Rules,	1983.		Learn
ed
				1
Additional Solicitor General also pointed out<br>that the liability of the State Government at

best can be restricted to the eleven teachers for whom the State Government has earlier granted the aid, which the State Government has

now come forward to sanction pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 12.5.2016 and 13.7.2016. Along with the compliance affidavit, the necessary order sanctioning a sum of Rs.8,03,161/- towards 70% of the salary in respect of eleven teachers, which is stated to have been disbursed by order No.69 dated 16.7.2016. The said payment is stated to be the salary covering the months April, 2016 to July, 2016.

Mr. Dushyant Parashar, learned counsel appearing for the School Management also confirmed that such payment has been received and that for the months from April, 2016 to June, 2016 the respective salary has also been disbursed to the concerned eleven teachers along with the 30% to be borne by the School Management. Learned counsel also submitted that the salary for the month of July, 2016 would be duly paid on the respective date for the said eleven teachers. Learned Additional Solicitor General in

his submissions pointed out that since, as per the 2010 Rules, the grant of aid cease to exist as it depended upon the absorption of the aided teachers by the State Government, the liability of payment of salary would depend upon such orders to be passed by the State Government for absorption. In that respect, when we heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as

2 the management and the learned Additional Solicitor General, we find that, in the normal course applying the Rules, when there was no dispute about the status of the eleven teachers as aided teachers of the School Management, merely because the School Management expressed its desire to cease to be an aided institution or that some time gap has occurred before 2008 onwards, the consideration for absorption of the eleven teachers in the State service cannot be denied.

We are, therefore, convinced that the said eleven teachers having been in the service of the School Management in the aided posts and were in receipt of such aid from the State Government right from the date of their entry into service till the aid came to be discontinued in 2008 only at the instance of the School Management, which has now been restored pursuant to the orders of this Court, the State Government can be directed to pass necessary orders for their absorption applying the 2010 Rules as from the date such Rules came into effect.

We, therefore, set aside the orders denying such absorption and remit the matter back to Respondent No.1/State Government to consider the claim of the eleven aided teachers for their absorption as from the date when the 2010 Rules came into effect and such orders shall be passed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After passing such orders of absorption,

it is needless to state that whatever salary that fell due and payable to the said eleven teachers for the past period i.e. from

3 28.3.2008 shall be restored in the manner such aid is to be granted prior to the coming into force of the 2010 Rules. In other words, such aid is to be sanctioned to an extent of 70% and 30% to be borne by the School Management, such calculation shall be made and the extent to which aid is to be sanctioned shall be granted up to the date by which the order of absorption is passed and thereafter the full salary payable for an absorbed teacher in the State service shall also be calculated and sanctioned by Respondent No.1/State Government. On such orders being passed, we also direct the School Management to take necessary steps for paying the 30% of their liability from March, 2008 up to the date of the absorption of the eleven teachers, as per the orders to be passed by the State Government. We permit the School Management to make such payment of 30% to the eleven teachers in easy installments by negotiating with the concerned teachers in order to ensure that sudden huge financial liability is not cast on the School Management so that the running of the school for the benefit of the school going children in that location. Insofar as the remaining 23 teachers are concerned, even as per our order dated 12.5.2016 under sub-paragraph (i) we made it clear that it is the responsibility of the School Management to meet the salary payment in respect of the non-aided teachers working in the non-sanctioned posts, initially for the period from 1st April, 2016. Therefore, the School Management having availed the service of the remaining 23 teachers working in the 4 non-sanctioned post, it is their responsibility to pay their salary towards arrears from 1st April, 2008 as well as for the current period i.e. from the month of April, 2016. In order to enable the School Management to discharge the said liability in respect of the said 23 teachers, we direct that at least from the month of June, 2016 the salary shall be paid in full for the current month and while paying the salary to the said 23 teachers they shall also pay an additional one third of the monthly salary payable and continue to make such additional payment along with the monthly salary for the current month as well as the future months so as to wipe off the arrears payable by the School Management from the month of April, 2008. We also direct the School Management to submit a statement of calculation as regards the salary which was actually disbursed to the aided teachers as well as non-aided teachers from the month of April, 2008. The School Management shall separately prepare a statement of calculation as regards the salary paid to the aided teachers and forward it to the State Government with proof of payment in order to

enable the State Government to comply with our directions with regard to the payment of salary

payable up to the date of the absorption.

As far as revision in the payment of salary is to be granted, the same shall also be prepared and appropriate order be passed by the State Government. Such payment shall also be effected positively by the School Management. Contempt notice is discharged. 5 With the above directions, these appeals stand disposed of. ................................J. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA] ................................J. [UDALY UMESH LALIT] NEW DELHI; JULY 19, 2016 6 ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.6 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).17669-17671/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02/08/2013 in DBCWP No. 3480/2012 & DBCWP No. 5641/2012, 29/11/2013 in DBCMR No. 193/2013, 17/01/2014 in DBCMR No. 192/2013 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur) SOBHAGYA SINGH SHEKHAWAT & ORS. ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. ETC. ETC. Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and office report) Date : 19/07/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed,Adv. Mr. Mohd. Parvez Dabas,Adv. Mr. Uzmi Janeel Husain,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta,ASG Mr. S.S. Shamshery,AAG Mr. Amit Sharma,Adv. Mr. Prateek Yadav,Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Adv. Mr. Dushyant Parashar,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.

The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(NARENDRA PRASAD) (SHARDA KAPOOR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

7