1 2025:CGHC:48216 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4988 of 2025 1 - Bilaspur Private School Management Association Society, A Registered Education Society, Registered Under Societies Registration Act, 1973, Bearing Registration No. 1222201936676, Having Office At Brilliant Public School, Mission Hospital Road, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Through Its President, Pravin Agrawal. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director (Public Instructions) Directorate Of Public Instructions, Mantralaya, Indravati Bhawan, Block 3, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Udit Khatri and Mr. Ashutosh Shrivatava, Advocates For State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 19/09/2025 1. With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally. 2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following relief:- 10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records concerning the case of the petitioner Society from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. 2 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ commanding the respondents to consider and update per child expenditure incurred by the member schools of Petitioner Association under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act of 2009 read with Rule 12 of the Rules of 2010. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to further issue an appropriate writ commanding the respondents to release and reimburse the outstanding payment of per child expenditure incurred by the member schools of Petitioner Association under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act of 2009 read with Rule 12 of the Rules of 2010. 10.4 Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition may also please be granted to the petitioners. 3. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner- association seeks to invoke extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India though not challenging any particular order or orders of the respondents but is challenging the in-action on the part of the respondents for not considering the representation of the petitioner Association with regard to enhancement of reimbursement amount in respect of per child expenditure incurred by the member private schools of the petitioner Association in terms of the provisions of Section 12 (2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 2009) read with Rule 12 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules 2010). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Directorate of Public Instructions GoCG, vide its circular/letter dated 31/01/2013, issued guidelines to all the District Education Officers of the State with regard 3 to reimbursement amount per year per child expenditure for children studying in non-governmental schools according to which the amount fixed is Rs.7000/- per year per child for primary school children and Rs.11400/- per year per child for the upper primary school children in view of the provisions of Section 12 (2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 for last 8 (eight) years and thereafter after 12 years the respondent-authorities has not enhanced /revised per child expenditure whereas, despite repeated representations made by the petitioner Association in order to increase the reimbursement amount per child, there is no whisper from the State Government and the reimbursement amount being paid by the State Government is much lower side in comparison to the amount of reimbursement per child expenditure under the provisions of Section 12 (2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, in other States which is on higher side either just double or even much more than it and is being revised from time to time every year. Petitioner Association is also challenging the in-action on the part of the respondents for not reimbursing regularly and timely on account of which the member private schools of the petitioner Association are facing financial crisis to discharge their statutory obligation. Whereas, the respondent state is under the statutory and legal obligation under section 12 (2) of the RTE Act, 2009 to release the funds timely. 5. Section 12(2) of the Right of Children to free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 provides as under:- “(2) The school s specified in sub-clause (iv) of clause (n) of section 2 providing free-and compulsory elementary education as specified in clause (c) of sub- section (1) shall be reimbursed expenditure so incurred 4 by it to the extent of per-child-expenditure incurred by the State, or the actual amount charged from the child, whichever is less, in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that such reimbursement shall not exceed per- child-expenditure incurred by a school specified in sub- clause (i) of clause (n) of section 2: Provided further that where such school is already under obligation to provide free education to a specified number of children on account of it having received any land, building, equipment or other facilities, either free of cost or at a concessional rate, such school shall not be entitled for reimbursement to the extent of such obligation.” 6. Rule 12 of the Right of Children to free and Compulsory Education Rule 2010 provides as under:- “Reimbursement of per-child-expenditure by the appropriate Government-(1) The total annual recurring expenditure incurred by the appropriate Government, from its own funds, and funds provided by the Central Government and by any other authority, on elementary education in respect of all schools referred to in sub- clause (i) of clause (n) of section 2. divided by the total number of children enrolled in all such schools, shall be the per-child-expenditure incurred by the appropriate Government. Explanation. For the purpose of determining the per- child-expenditure, the expenditure incurred by the appropriate Government or local authority on schools referred to in sub-clause (ii) of clause (n) of section 2 and the children enrolled in such schools shall not be included. (2) Every school referred to in clauses (iii) and (iv) of clause (n) of section 2 shall maintain a separate bank account in respect of the amount received by it as reimbursement under sub-section (2) of section 12.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner association sought information from other states also and it is revealed that in the state of Gujarat, the reimbursement amount is Rs. 13000/-, in Rajasthan, the reimbursement amount is Rs. 14919/-, in Delhi, the reimbursement amount is Rs. 26908/-, in Odisha, the reimbursement 5 amount is about Rs. 25,272/- and in Tamil Nadu, the reimbursement amount is about Rs. 16,477 and in Uttarakhand, the reimbursement amount is about Rs. 13,855/-. 8. Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the respondent State is further very against the objects and reasons for enactment of "The Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education, 2009" wherein the crucial role of universal elementary education for strengthening the social fabric of democracy under the directive principles of State Policy enumerated in the Constitution that that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children up to the age of 14 years as well as other statutory obligations casted upon the State Government to ensure other duties and responsibilities of the appropriate government to implement the other obligations under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act of 2009 r/w Rule 12 of the Rules of 2010 for the purpose of per child expenditure incurred by all the schools as referred to in Section 2(n) of the Act of 2009. Simultaneously, the provisions with regard to reimbursement of per child expenditure incurred by the schools as referred to in Section 2 (n) of the Act of 2009 by the appropriate Government whereas, in the instant case, the respondent State has completely failed either to update per child expenditure incurred by the schools particularly by the member schools of Petitioner Association or to reimburse so far such expenditure under the statutory obligation of Rule 12 of the Rules of 2010. Therefore he prays from this Court to consider the aforesaid relief and submission. 9. Learned counsel for respondent-State submits that with regard to 6 grievance of the petitioner-association, the petitioner-association may file a fresh representation to the respondent-authorities, the same shall be considered in accordance with law within stipulated time frame. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that in year 2020, the petitioner association has made representation before the State Government for enhancement of reimbursement/revised amount in respect of per child expenditure which is pending consideration before the concerned authorities, therefore this Court finds it appropriate to dispose of the present petition at this stage directing the petitioner to file a fresh detailed representation along with all the relevant documents to the respondent No. 1 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in-turn the respondent No. 1 shall decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of 6 months from the date of representation filed by the petitioner-association. 12. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case. 13. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge