JUDGMENT
Ashok Parihar, J.
1. The writ petition is disposed of finally as prayed by counsel for the parties.
2. The show cause notice was issued and interim order has also passed relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Ahmadabad Private Primary College Teachers’ Association v. Administrative Officer and Ors. 2004(1) SCC 755 = RLW 2004(1) SC 63. However, a careful reading of the entire judgment would show that the same is not applicable at all in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
3. In the case of Ahmadabad Private Primary Teachers’ Association (supra), the Supreme Court has held that teacher of a private institution is not an “employee” or “workman” so as to file an application for gratuity before the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as such, the orders passed by such authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act are without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, however, made following observations:-
“Our conclusion should not be misunderstood that teachers although engaged in a very noble profession of educating our young generation should not be given any gratuity benefit. There are already in several States separate statutes, rules and regulations granting gratuity benefits to teachers in educational institutions which are more or less beneficial than the gratuity benefits provided under the Act. It is for the legislature to take congnizance of situation of such teachers in various establishments where gratuity benefits are not available and think of a separate legislation for them in this regard. That is the subject-matter solely of the legislature to consider and decide.”
4. In the present case, the State Government has already enacted a separate Act for the employees of the Private Educational Institutions and a form in the name of Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institutions Tribunal has also been constituted for adjudication of the disputes between the employees and the institution and service benefits including the benefit of gratuity has also been incorporated in the Act itself. In the present case, the respondent employee had approached the tribunal under the provisions of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 and the impugned order has also been passed by the Tribunal as per the provisions of the above Act of 1989 and Rules made thereunder.
5. Since after due consideration proper discretion has been used by the Tribunal, I find no ground for any further interference of this Court. It has now been submitted that the controversy in regard to payment of gratuity to the employees of the private educational institutions, so far as getting reimbursement form the grant in aid form the State Government is concerned, the matter is sub-judice before the Supreme Court. It is for the petitioner to claim reimbursement of the amount of gratuity now to be paid to the concerned employees as per the directions of the tribunal from the State Government as per the directions/observations, if any made by the State Government at appropriate stage.
6. With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed accordingly as having no merit.