AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.—These appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment, since the grievance in both the appeals is one and the same.
Both the appeals have been filed, aggrieved by the judgment dated 5.11.2003 in CWP No. 203/1997. The issue pertains to the grant-in-aid. There is no case for anybody that the appellants in LPA No. 47 of 2003 were not entitled for grant-in-aid. They had been in receipt of grant-in-aid and still are in receipt of the same. However, there is dispute for the period from 1993-94 to 1996-97, during which the Management had resolved not to accept grant-in-aid. Apparently, that decision was taken since the disputes were pending before this Court. After the remand by the Apex Court, it is significant to note, that in the cases of some other Managements, this Court had passed interim orders directing the release of grant-in-aid, subject to the result of resolution of the disputes before this Court.
It is evident from the records that grant-in-aid was not paid to the appellants on the only ground of their resolution not to receive the same till the disputes were resolved. But once the dispute had been resolved, they had taken Resolution dated 10.9.1997 rescinding the Resolution dated 10.9.1993 resolving:
It is unanimously resolved that resolution No. 3 taken in the meeting No. 276 held on 10.9.1993 be rescinded in the interest of school and grant may be taken from the Government w.e.f. 1.4.1993. This resolution No. 3 is rescinded from the date of its passing.
There is no dispute either for the State or the Staff that the resolution, as extracted above, was not taken properly or was taken with any oblique motive. It was validly resolved and it is in terms of the entitlement to get the grant-in-aid. It is also to be seen that the appellants-Sabha had been in receipt of the grant-in-aid prior to the period in dispute and thereafter till date it is in receipt of the same. There is no case for anybody that during the period in dispute i.e. from 1993-94 to 1996-97, the school had not been functioning.
The only ground on which the learned Single Judge had issued direction to the appellants to release the salary to the staff is their own resolution which is referred to above. It is not a case of refusal to accept the grant-in-aid by the Management; rather the only case of the Management was to put off the issue till the resolution of the disputes pending before this Court. In any case, it is to be seen that there is a direction of the Apex Court that grant-in-aid should be paid. The direction reads as follows:
...High Court judgment was delivered on 9.9.1992. We modify the High Court Judgment to the extent that the enhanced grant-in-aid be paid to the aided schools with effect from 1.4.1993.
The above judgment by the Apex Court in State of H.P. Vs. H.P. State Recognised and Aided Schools Managing Committees and Others, still stands. Both the sides, i.e. the State and the appellants in LPA No. 47 of 2003, are parties to the said case. There is no case for the State that the appellants are not otherwise entitled to the grant-in-aid.
In the above circumstances, we allow this appeal and set aside the direction of the learned Single Judge to pay the grant-in-aid by the Appellants-Sabha to the staff for the period from 1993-94 to 1996-97. The same is ordered to be paid by the Government within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the appellants before the Government. In case the staff has not been paid their eligible salary for the aforesaid period, the same shall be paid along with 5% share of the management to the staff, within another one month of the receipt of the grant-in-aid from the Government.
Both the appeals stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.