Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1702 (PNJ)

Chanda Singh Pehal v. State of Haryana

2012-12-03

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2012
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.:— (Oral) This judgment shall dispose of 11 civil writ petitions i. e. CWP Nos. 11373 of 2003, CWP No. 13196 of 2002, CWP No. 1864 of 2005, CWP No. 21996 of 2010, CWP No. 15729 of 2010, CWP No. 15737 of 2010, CWP No. 18388 of 2010, CWP No. 22367 of 2010, CWP No. 17756 of 2011, CWP No. 20293 of 2011 and CWP No. 8663 of 2012. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners were the employees of Government Aided Educational Institutes which are privately managed but are receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government under the grant-in-aid scheme. They have superannuated and have been paid their retiral benefits except leave encashment. The petitioners have come to this Court claiming their entitlement to leave encashment in respect of unutilized leaves on the ground that said question has already been dealt with and decided in favour of such employees in many of the judgments passed by this Court. Reliance has been placed by the petitioners on the judgments i. e. CWP No. 14188 of 1999 (L. R. Sidana versus State of Haryana etc.) decided on 30.10.2000, CWP No. 3732 of 2001 (Dr. Karan Singh Rathee and others versus State of Haryana and others) decided on 20.8.2007, CWP No. 16992 of 1997 (Jagdev Singh Dalal versus State of Haryana and others) decided on 11.5.1998, CWP No. 14507 of 2010 (TC Dogra and others versus State of Haryana and others) decided on 27.11.2010, LPA No. 519 of (Anglo Sanskrit High School, Khanna Trust and Management Society versus State of Punjab and others) decided on 5.4.2011 and CWP No. 3096 of 2001 (R. K. Bansal versus State of Haryana) decided on 26.8.2002. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- Management could not dispute the fact that on the basis of the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners, the benefit of leave encashment has to be extended to the petitioners who are employees of Privately Managed Institutes receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government. However, on the basis of observations of the learned Division Bench in LPA No. 519 of 2011 decided on 5.4.2011, an argument has been raised on behalf of the Management that leave encashment is a part of salary and thus, it being part of salary is payable by the State Government to the extent of 95% under the grant-in-aid scheme. However, on the basis of observations of the learned Division Bench in LPA No. 519 of 2011 decided on 5.4.2011, an argument has been raised on behalf of the Management that leave encashment is a part of salary and thus, it being part of salary is payable by the State Government to the extent of 95% under the grant-in-aid scheme. However, the learned State counsel has stated that the question whether the leave encashment is a part of salary or not, is an issue which is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the direction of this Court holding it to be a part of salary of which grant-in-aid is payable by the State Government has been virtually stayed by staying the contempt proceedings in such matters. Learned State counsel has further placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Shiv Niwas Tiwari versus State of Haryana (P&H) 2006(3) PLR 701 and RSA No. 3729 of 2001 (State of Haryana and another versus Balbir Singh) decided on 29.2.2012, to contend that no liability can be cast upon the State of Haryana and payment, if any, has to be made by the Management of the Private Institutes. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the various judgments produced before this Court. It may be noticed at this stage that entitlement of the petitioners to the benefit of leave encashment is not disputed either by the Management or the State and the only dispute raised is as to who shall discharge the liability. At this stage, it is useful to refer to the judgment dated 1.10.2012 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 920 of 2012 titled as “Arya College, Rishi Dayanand Marg, Civil Lines, Ludhiana and another vs. State of Punjab and others, wherein after noticing the similar contentions raised, this Court has concluded as under:- “(ii) As far as leave encashment is concerned, again amount is payable to the private respondents on this account. Whether it is a part of salary or not is an issue which now is in the lap of the Apex Court. Though this Court has held it to be a part of salary of which grant-in-aid is payable by the State Government, that direction has virtually been stayed by the Apex Court, by staying the contempt proceedings. Whether it is a part of salary or not is an issue which now is in the lap of the Apex Court. Though this Court has held it to be a part of salary of which grant-in-aid is payable by the State Government, that direction has virtually been stayed by the Apex Court, by staying the contempt proceedings. This dispute between the non- Government colleges and the State Government cannot be allowed as a shield for denying the payment to the private respondents, which is admittedly, due to them. Whether it comes from the pocket of the appellants or from the coffers of the State Government is not their concern. Having regard to the dicta of Shri Anandi Murti’s case (supra), we are of the opinion that the appellants should meet this liability as well by making payment to the private respondents without any further ado, inasmuch as, the private respondents were the employees of these appellant-colleges and, therefore, having regard to the relation of master and servant between them, the appellants cannot shy away from their primary responsibility to pay this amount. It would, however, be open to these non-Government colleges to claim reimbursement from the State of Punjab in case Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 5.4.2011 in LPA No. 519 of 2011 [Anglo Sanskrit High School Khanna Trust and Management Society (Regd. ), Khanna and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab and others] is ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court. ” In this view of the matter and having regard to the totality of the circumstances, these writ petitions are allowed and a direction is issued to the respondent-Management to make the payment to the petitioners on account of benefit of leave encashment within three months from today along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date it accrued till its realization with liberty to the Privately Managed Institutes to claim reimbursement of the same from the State Government in accordance with law.