High Court held that retired employees of privately managed aided colleges are entitled to leave encashment equivalent to government employees, directing the State to pay the amount with interest.
Direction to make payment of leave encashment amount with interest at 9% per annum from date of retirement to be done within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
CWP No.14507 of 2010
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision: 17.11.2010
TC Dogra and others ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI
Present: Mr. PL Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. RD Sharma, DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. None for respondent No.4.
Mr.Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, for respondent No.5.
PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral)
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
The petitioners had been working in the respondent-Colleges, i.e. privately managed aided Colleges, on different posts. They have retired from service after 1.1.1996 on attaining the age of superannuation. The employees of the privately managed/aided colleges are treated at par with the Government College employees in respect of pay and pensionary benefits. The petitioners being similarly situated employees of privately aided colleges challenged the action of the respondents in not releasing the leave encashment to them before this Court in CWP No.14188 of 1999L.R. Sidana Vs. The State of Haryana etc. (Annexure P-2) which was allowed by a Division Bench on 30.10.2000. The petitioners made representation claiming the benefit of leave encashment in view of the
2
CWP No.14507 of 2010
decision aforesaid vide Annexure P-3, but to no avail. Hence, the present writ petition.
The controversy raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a decision of this Court rendered in CWP No.14188 of 1999 (LR Sidana Vs. The State of Haryana etc.) on 30.10.2000, wherein the following directions/observations have been made:-
“Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to make payment of leave encashment amount that is payable to the petitioner in accordance with law with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of payment. The amount accordingly found payable be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order or from the date a copy of this order is supplied to the respondents.”
Even Civil Appeal No.4112 of 2003 filed against the order of this Court granting leave encashment to a similarly situated person also stands dismissed on 12.11.2009 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
This judgment has been followed by this Court recently in CWP No.5738 of 2004 (Ramesh Chand Jindal Vs. State of Haryana and others) decided on 17.09.2009.
In view of the above, present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to make payment of leave encashment amount that is payable to the petitioners in the writ petition in accordance with law with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of retirement
CWP No.14507 of 2010
3
till the date of payment. Let the needful be done within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received by the competent authority.
17.11.2010 BLS
(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether privately managed aided college employees are entitled to leave encashment treatment same as Government employees.
Whether the requirement to have specifically mentioned a government order is a bar to the employees being treated at par with govt employee.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
LR Sidana Vs. The State of HaryanaFollowed¶14
LR Sidana Vs. The State of Haryana
Civil Appeal No.4112 of 2003Referred¶20
Ramesh Chand Jindal Vs. State of HaryanaFollowed¶21
CWP No.5738 of 2004 (Ramesh Chand Jindal Vs. State of Haryana and others)
TC Dogra and others
State of Haryana
others
Permod Kohli
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
