1. Court’s decision
The Bombay High Court has directed the State of Maharashtra to scrutinize and release reimbursement arrears claimed by several private schools under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). The Court followed its earlier ruling in Gurukul English Medium School and fixed strict timelines: eight weeks for verification of each petitioner’s claim and two additional weeks for releasing the admissible amounts. If any school is found not entitled to reimbursement, the State must issue a reasoned order enabling the institution to seek further remedies. The writ petition was finally disposed of with these directions.
2. Facts
Multiple educational institutions from Nashik district approached the High Court seeking release of arrears under the RTE Act. The petitioners included schools and educational societies which had admitted students under the RTE quota and claimed that reimbursement amounts for previous academic years remained unpaid. They argued that despite repeated representations, the authorities had failed to process or disburse their dues, causing operational hardships. The petition sought a mandamus compelling the Union of India, the State Government, and the Directorate of Education to complete scrutiny and clear their arrears. The petitioners relied on earlier High Court orders where similarly placed schools had been granted identical relief.
3. Issues
The primary issue was whether the State could be directed to release RTE reimbursement arrears by applying previously issued High Court directions in similar cases. A connected issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to claim reimbursement without the State first completing an eligibility and quantum assessment. The Court also considered whether its earlier judgments constituted binding precedent for identical RTE reimbursement disputes.
4. Petitioners’ arguments
The petitioners argued that they had complied with all obligations under the RTE Act by admitting the mandated number of children from disadvantaged groups. They asserted that the State is under a statutory obligation to reimburse private unaided schools to ensure that RTE compliance does not impose an unsustainable financial burden. They pointed out that several writ petitions on the same subject had already been allowed, including a detailed order in Gurukul English Medium School, and therefore, the State must extend the same treatment to them. The petitioners emphasized that delay in reimbursement had destabilized their financial planning, affecting staff salaries, infrastructure, and essential educational activities.
5. Respondents’ arguments
The State did not oppose the applicability of earlier orders but submitted that reimbursement cannot be automatic. It argued that each petitioner’s claim must undergo independent scrutiny to verify the number of eligible students admitted, compliance with admission norms, documentation, and justification of the quantum claimed. The State requested sufficient time to conduct this verification. It also pointed out that reimbursement funds involve budgetary allocations, requiring procedural compliance before release. However, the State did not dispute its fundamental obligation to reimburse once eligibility is verified.
6. Analysis of the law
The RTE Act obligates the State to reimburse private unaided schools for admitting children under the weaker-section quota, based on per-child expenditure. Judicial precedent across multiple High Court benches has consistently held that reimbursement is not a discretionary benevolence but a statutory mandate. The Court analyzed its own earlier orders, particularly in Writ Petition 6020 of 2024, where an eight-week timeline for scrutiny and a two-week timeline for disbursement were established.
The legal framework emphasizes fairness, uniformity, and timely disbursement. The Court recognized that failure to reimburse would undermine the objectives of the RTE Act and place undue financial stress on private institutions, effectively penalizing them for fulfilling statutory duties. At the same time, the law requires verification before disbursement, ensuring that public funds are released only after validating eligibility and correctness of claims.
7. Precedent analysis
The Court relied heavily on its prior decision in Gurukul English Medium School v. State of Maharashtra, where similar reimbursement claims were addressed. The earlier judgment mandated a structured verification process followed by timely disbursement, recognizing the State’s ongoing delays in clearing arrears across districts. By following this precedent, the Court ensured consistency and prevented administrative arbitrariness.
The Court also noted that several benches have adopted the same mechanism for resolving RTE reimbursement disputes, creating a uniform protocol across Maharashtra. By reiterating these guidelines, the Court reinforced the principle that similarly situated schools must be treated alike and that the State cannot selectively delay payments.
8. Court’s reasoning
The Court concluded that the petitioners’ grievance was identical to those considered in earlier judgments. Since the State acknowledged its obligation to verify and disburse reimbursements, the Court held that there was no need to reinvent the process. Instead, it simply applied the established framework from Gurukul English Medium School.
The Court found it appropriate to prescribe strict timelines: eight weeks for scrutinising each petitioner’s claim and two weeks thereafter for releasing payments. It emphasized that if any school is found not entitled to reimbursement, the State must issue a reasoned order, thereby ensuring transparency and enabling judicial review. These directions were designed to balance the schools’ financial rights with the State’s duty to ensure correctness of claims.
9. Conclusion
The writ petition was disposed of with specific directions requiring the State to:
• complete scrutiny within eight weeks;
• determine eligibility and quantum;
• release admissible reimbursement amounts within two weeks of completion of scrutiny;
• issue a reasoned order where any petitioner is found ineligible.
The Court discharged the rule and made no further adjudication on merits, given that the issue was squarely governed by precedent. By ensuring that petitioners receive timely reimbursement, the Court reinforced the financial sustainability of private schools participating in the RTE regime.
10. Implications
This ruling strengthens the jurisprudence that RTE reimbursements must be processed swiftly and transparently. It reiterates that the State cannot indefinitely defer payments, especially when schools are mandated by law to admit RTE-category students.
Key implications include:
• Uniform statewide timelines for scrutiny and disbursement of RTE arrears;
• Clarification that reimbursement is a statutory obligation, not optional support;
• Requirement of reasoned orders when rejecting claims, enhancing accountability;
• Reinforcement of earlier judgments, promoting predictability in RTE funding matters.
The judgment will likely accelerate reimbursement cycles across Maharashtra and prevent administrative delays that undermine RTE objectives.
CASE LAW REFERENCES
1. Gurukul English Medium School v. State of Maharashtra (2024)
Held that RTE reimbursement claims must be scrutinized within eight weeks and released within two weeks thereafter. This precedent was directly applied to the present case.
2. Prior High Court orders on RTE grants (multiple petitions)
These decisions consistently mandated verification-driven reimbursement, forming the jurisprudential backbone for the present directions.
FAQ SECTION
1. What did the Bombay High Court direct regarding RTE reimbursement?
The Court ordered the State to scrutinize each petitioner’s claim within eight weeks and release eligible reimbursement amounts within two weeks thereafter, following established precedent.
2. Can the State deny RTE reimbursement?
Yes, but only after issuing a reasoned order explaining why a petitioner is not eligible. Schools may then seek further legal remedies.
3. Why did the Court rely on the Gurukul English Medium School judgment?
Because the present petition raised identical issues, and the Court sought consistency, uniformity, and administrative efficiency in handling RTE arrear claims.