JUDGMENT : ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. 1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging an order passed by the Registrar 'Madan Mohan Malviya, University of Technology, Gorakhpur' dated 9.12.2015, contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition, whereby petitioner's claim for being paid leave encashment has been declined. This order has been passed pursuant to an order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 59619 of 2015. Petitioner has also challenged the Government Orders dated 13.4.2000 and 18.8.2015, which provides that no leave encashment would be payable to employees of certain institutes, which includes the predecessor in interest of the University concerned. 2. Petitioner was initially appointed as Professor, Training and Placement in 'Madan Mohan Malviya, Engineering College, Gorakhpur'. The institution was initially an establishment of the State of U.P. and was affiliated to the 'Uttar Pradesh Technical University, Lucknow'. It is alleged in para-3 that the college, as was initially established, was fully owned and controlled by the State Government and was later on converted into a society under the Societies Registration Act in the name of 'Madan Mohan Malviya, Engineering College Society, Gorakhpur'. 3. Facts pleaded in that regard are not in issue though entitlement of petitioner to receive leave encashment is disputed. It transpires that later on, State of U.P. enacted U.P. Act No. 22 of 2013 being 'Uttar Pradesh Madan Mohan Malviya University of Technology Act, 2013' (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2013) to regulate the institution.. Section 4(4) of the Act of 2013 is relevant for the present purposes and is thus reproduced hereinafter:- “4(4) every person employed by the Madan Mohan Malviya Engineering College, Gorakhpur immediately before the commencement of this act shall hold his office or service in the University by the same tenure, t the same remuneration and upon the same terms and conditions and with the same rights and privileges as to pension, leave, gratuity, provident fund, and other matters as he would have held if this Act had not been passed, and shall continue to do so unless and until his employment is terminated or he has opted for the University's terms and conditions of employment.” 4. Reliance is also placed upon Section 38 of the Act of 2013, which is also extracted here in after:- “(38) Appointment of terms and conditions of Employment and Emoluments of Academic and Non-Academic Staff of the University:-The terms and conditions of employment of all employees of the University, academic as well as non-academic, the manner of their appointment and the emoluments to be paid to the employees will be such as may be prescribed.” 5. First Statutes of the University have been framed and notified on 27.11.2015. The relevant provisions relating to grant of leave and its encashment in the statutes are, therefore, taken note of first. 6. Clause-53 of the Statute defines the kind of leaves which are admissible to the employees of the University. Relevant portion of Clauses-52 and 53 of the Statute relating to grant of leave, is reproduced below:- “52 (1). The provisions contained in the Statute shall apply to University teachers and other employees of the University. (b) 'Earned leave' means leave earned in respect of the periods spent on duty.” “53. The following kinds of leave shall be admissible to members of the employees:- (e) Earned leave. (v) The leave at the credit of an employee at the close of the previous half year shall be carried forward to the next half year, subject to the condition that the leave so carried forward plus the credit for the half year do not exceed the maximum limit of 300 days.” 7. Clause-53 of the Statute relates to earned leave and shall be elaborately considered later. Clause-57 of the Statute provides for cash payment in lieu of unutilised earned leave on the date of retirement and is reproduced hereinafter:- “57. An employee may be paid cash equivalent of leave salary admissible in respect of the period of earned leave at his credit at the time of retirement on superannuation in one lump sum as a one-time settlement subject to a maximum of 180 days, and further subject to other conditions laid down by the Government from time to time.” 8. An employee may be paid cash equivalent of leave salary admissible in respect of the period of earned leave at his credit at the time of retirement on superannuation in one lump sum as a one-time settlement subject to a maximum of 180 days, and further subject to other conditions laid down by the Government from time to time.” 8. On the strength of aforesaid enabling provisions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the Act of 2013 as well as Statute thereof, the entitlement of an employee to be paid earned leave stands crystallized and it would not be open for the State or the University to oppose grant of such benefits relying upon earlier instructions issued, which otherwise were inconsistent with the policy of the State. Reliance is placed upon an order of this court in Writ Petition No. 13467 of 2006, whereby claim for payment of leave encashment in respect of similar employees has been allowed vide following orders passed on 21.2.2014:- “Heard Sri Shaikh Ubaidullah holding brief of Sri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O.P. Tripathi holding brief of Sri Ramesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 19th January, 2006, whereby his claim for payment of leave encashment has been rejected in view of the Government Order dated 2nd September, 2005. A prayer for quashing the Government Order dated 02.09.2005 is also made in the writ petition. From the perusal of the G.O. dated 2nd September, 2005, it is evident that the said Government Order is prospective. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner retired from service on 30th September, 1999 and at the relevant point of time other employees of the institution were extended the benefit of leave encashment and some of such employees, he has named in paragraph 12, 13 and 14 of the writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government, it is admitted that the employees of the institution were being paid leave encashment as per clause-14 and 17 of the Modern Bylaws. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government, it is admitted that the employees of the institution were being paid leave encashment as per clause-14 and 17 of the Modern Bylaws. However, the present claim laid in the writ petition filed by the petitioner is contested on the ground that the State Government having discontinued the said benefit by Government Order dated 2nd September, 2005, hence the petitioner would not be entitled to the said benefit. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Government Order dated 2nd September, 2005 is prospective, as such, the State Government could not deny the benefit of leave encashment to the petitioner on the strength of the said Government Order. It is also undisputed that similarly situated employees working in the institution prior to the issuance of the aforesaid G.O. have been extended the benefit of leave encashment. The case in the counter affidavit is also not to the effect that the said benefit was advanced to the said employees on account of any irregularity on the part of the State Government, for which reason parity cannot be extended to the petitioner on that account. In view of above, challenge to the order dated 19th January, 2006 made by the petitioner in the writ petition succeeds and to that extent prayer made by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order dated 19th January, 2006 is hereby set aside. Since it has already been held that the Government Order dated 2nd September, 2005 is prospective, therefore, this Court need not go into the validity of the said Government Order for the purposes of the claim of the petitioner as laid in the present writ petition. The writ petition is partly allowed and a direction is issued to the concerned opposite party to extend the benefit of leave encashment to the petitioner at par with the similarly situated employees. This direction shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to cost.” 9. This direction shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to cost.” 9. An order of the Registrar dated 2.7.2015 has also been brought on record as Annexure-10 to the writ petition, whereby benefit of leave encashment has been allowed to eight employees of the University, on the strength of an earlier adjudication by this Court in the case of Ram Pyarey Yadav. It is urged that the action of the respondents in denying earned leave to petitioner is clearly discriminatory and arbitrary. 10. A counter affidavit has been filed disputing the entitlement of the petitioner to be paid leave encashment. Reference is made to the order passed by the State Government on 13.4.2000, according to which benefit of leave encashment would not be admissible to an employee of aided autonomous body including the Engineering College affiliated to the University. 11. Learned counsel for the University further states that the order dated 13.4.2000 was inadvertently not brought before this Court in Writ Petition No. 13467 of 2006 and, therefore, this Court had no occasion to deal with it. It is also submitted that the provisions of the Act of 2013 and the Statute framed therein, did not specifically contemplate payment of amount towards leave encashment and, therefore, the order of the University suffers from no error. It is also stated that even in Statute-57, the maximum number of days for which leave could be encashed stands specified as 180 days and, therefore, petitioner would not be entitled to claim payment of leave encashment for 220 days of earned leave as is prayed for in this petition. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Government has issued a Government Order dated 3.7.2000, in which period of leave encashment has been enhanced to 300 days and that such Government Order would also be attracted upon the institution concerned, particularly in view of Statute-57. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that once the employees of the University are being granted all benefits which are admissible to State Government employees, it would be otherwise inequitable to deny benefit of leave encashment to the petitioner concerned. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Jharkhand and others Vs. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that once the employees of the University are being granted all benefits which are admissible to State Government employees, it would be otherwise inequitable to deny benefit of leave encashment to the petitioner concerned. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Jharkhand and others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another, (2013) 12 SCC 210 wherein following observations have been made in paragraph Nos. 8 & 16:- “8. It is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not the bounties. An employee earns these benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and un-blemished service. Conceptually it is so lucidly described in D.S. Nakara and Ors. Vs. Union of India; (1983) 1 SCC 305 by Justice D.A. Desai, who spoke for the Bench, in his inimitable style, in the following words: “18. The approach of the respondents raises a vital and none too easy of answer, question as to why pension is paid. And why was it required to be liberalised? Is the employer, which expression will include even the State, bound to pay pension? Is there any obligation on the employer to provide for the erstwhile employee even after the contract of employment has come to an end and the employee has ceased to render service? 19. What is a pension? What are the goals of pension? What public interest or purpose, if any, it seeks to serve? If it does seek to serve some public purpose, is it thwarted by such artificial division of retirement pre and post a certain date? We need seek answer to these and incidental questions so as to render just justice between parties to this petition. 20. The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty a gratituous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors.[1971] Su. S.C.R. 634 wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a Government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. S.C.R. 634 wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a Government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon any one’s discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied maters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules. This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab and Anr. V. Iqbal Singh (1976) II LLJ 377 SC”. It is thus hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of “property”. This right to property cannot be taken away without the due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India”. “16. The fact remains that there is an imprimatur to the legal principle that the right to receive pension is recognized as a right in “property”. Article 300 A of the Constitution of India reads as under: “300A Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law. -No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.” Once we proceed on that premise, the answer to the question posed by us in the beginning of this judgment becomes too obvious. A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300 A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the appellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced.” 13. I have heard Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramesh Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent University and have perused the materials brought on record. 14. Admittedly, petitioner has superannuated in the year 2015 after the institution was upgraded to the status of University under the Act of 2013. I have heard Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramesh Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent University and have perused the materials brought on record. 14. Admittedly, petitioner has superannuated in the year 2015 after the institution was upgraded to the status of University under the Act of 2013. The rights and privileges admissible to an employee of the University would be governed by the provisions of the Act and the Statute. Section 4(4) of the Act provides that the benefits which were otherwise available to an employee of the University would continue to remain admissible to him notwithstanding the conversion of status of Institute into a University. Emphasis is laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon previous orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 13467 of 2006, wherein this Court has allowed the claim of certain employees for payment of leave encashment. The judgment of this Court dated 21.2.2014 admittedly has been acted upon by the institution concerned and benefit of leave encashment has been granted by the Registrar vide its order dated 2.7.2015. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that once the benefit of leave encashment has been granted to a class of persons the University would not be justified in not extending similar treatment to the similarly situated employees, inasmuch as it was not open for the University to deny entitlement of certain persons belonging to same class while extending the benefit to others. The order passed by this Court on 21.2.2014 is not in issue nor it is in dispute that the benefit of leave encashment has been granted to some of the employees of the institution concerned. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that benefit was extended under the orders of this Court and it ought not to be treated as binding precedence. It is also stated that the instructions contained in the order dated 13.4.2000 was not taken note of by this Court while granting the benefit of leave encashment. 16. A perusal of the order of this Court in the case of Ram Pyarey Yadav would go to show that reference had been made to Clauses 9 (18) and 17 of the Model Bye-laws, which were applicable in respect of the employees of the engineering college concerned. These model bye-laws have been annexed alongwith the writ petition as Annexure-1. 16. A perusal of the order of this Court in the case of Ram Pyarey Yadav would go to show that reference had been made to Clauses 9 (18) and 17 of the Model Bye-laws, which were applicable in respect of the employees of the engineering college concerned. These model bye-laws have been annexed alongwith the writ petition as Annexure-1. Clauses -9(18) and 17 of the Model Bye-laws, which admittedly were applicable earlier, are reproduced here under:- “9. Terms and Conditions of Service of Permanent Employee:- 18. Leave:-The employees of the College/ Institute shall be entitled to leave in accordance with provisions laid down by the Board in the leave regulation.” 17. General:- Any matter not covered by the above rules and Bye-laws will be overned by the relevant rules applicable to the employees of the State Government for time being in forced till the Board framed its rules and Bye-laws.” 17. It appears that in respect of matters which were not covered by the model bye-laws, the employees were extended benefit which were otherwise made admissible to the employees of the State Government for the time being enforced. Clause-17 of the model bye-laws would clearly provide that the institution extended benefit to its employee is at par with the State Government in the past also. It was in that context that the writ petition, at the instance of a similar employees, was allowed by this Court and has been duly given effect to in respect of 8 other employees of the Institution concerned. This Court finds substance in the contention of the petitioner that extending the benefit to only 8 persons on the plea that directions were issued in their favour and thereby to deny similar treatment to other persons, would clearly be arbitrary. The matter has to be examined from a different aspect also. Once the institute has been conferred the status of a University as per the Act of 2013, the rights and privileges of the employees would have to be considered in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013 as well as Statute of the University. The provisions of the Statute have been taken note of and relevant provisions have been extracted above. The provisions of the Statute have been taken note of and relevant provisions have been extracted above. Clauses-52 and 53 of the Statute would clearly go to show that provision of earned leave exists under the relevant statutory scheme alongwith the provisions for its encashment in the manner specified in the Statute itself. In the hierarchy of laws, the provisions of the Act of 2013, the Statute of the University would stand on a higher pedestal over any administrative instructions issued by the State Government. The benefit which is available to an employee by virtue of Clause-57 would, therefore, be applicable to the petitioner concerned and the respondent would not be justified in denying consideration to petitioner's claim on the ground that instructions were issued by the State Government on 13.4.2000 and consequential orders were passed by the University on 9.12.2015. The Government Order dated 2.9.2005 also would not be of any relevance, once a similar plea set up by the Institute has been non-suited by this Court in the earlier judgment dated 21.2.2014 delivered in Writ Petition No. 13467 of 2006. 18. In view of the specific provisions contained in Clauses 52, 53 and 57 of the Statute, the entitlement of petitioner to receive benefit of leave encashment therefore cannot be disputed. 19. Writ petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 9.12.2015 passed by the Registrar Madan Mohan Malviya, University of Technology, Gorakhpur stands quashed. A direction is issued to the University concerned to extend benefit of leave encashment to petitioner strictly in terms of Clauses 52, 53 and 57 of the Statute of the University concerned. The Government Order dated 13.4.2000 and 18.8.2015 being inconsistent with the Statute of the University, would not stand in the way of grant of such benefit to the petitioner. The required consideration would be made within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.