JUDGMENT : All the writ petitions since are having common issues as such they were tagged to be heard together and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties they are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Prayer in W.P. (S) No. 793 of 2021 (a). For issuance of writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of Leave Encashment at par with the non-teaching employees of the College and the University of the State and also full gratuity of Rs. 20,00,000/- as per 7th Pay Revision with effect from 01.01.2016 at par with the State Govt. Employees and Officers as per Rules and Regulation; (b). For issuance of writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to pay the Leave Encashment and Gratuity amount immediately and forthwith; (c). For issuance of writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of letter dated 28.07.2022 (Annexure 11) by which the cut-off date has been fixed for grant of Leave Encashment for the University employees against the UGC Regulation, 2018 as the Executive Order cannot be superseded by the Statutory Act/Statute whereas all the Universities have notified the benefits of Leave Encashment for 300 days, now the Govt. cannot deprive the other similarly situated persons by passing such impugned order that too by the said Executive Order. Prayer in W.P. (S) No. 5018 of 2022 (a). For issuance of writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing/setting aside letter dated 28.07.2022 (Annexure 3) issued by the Higher Education to the Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, copy of which was also sent to the Vice Chancellor, Ranchi University alongwith other Universities wherein the cut off date for grant of Leave Encashment to the tune of 300 days for the University Employees has been fixed as 06.08.2021 in supersession of the statute as well as the UGC Regulation, 2018 insofar as an Executive Order cannot supersede Statutory Act/Statute. (b). For issuance of writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent/s concerned to forthwith pay the amount of leave encashment to the tune of 300 days, with interest in terms of the Resolution dated 06.08.2021. (c). (b). For issuance of writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent/s concerned to forthwith pay the amount of leave encashment to the tune of 300 days, with interest in terms of the Resolution dated 06.08.2021. (c). For issuance of writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent/s concerned to forthwith pay the amount of gratuity enhanced vide notification dated 29.03.2018 as per the 7th Pay Revision with effect from 01.01.2016 with penal interest. Prayer in W.P. (S) No. 511 of 2023 (a).For issuance of writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing/setting aside letter contained in memo no. PEN/827 dated 20.01.2023 (Annexure 3) issued by the Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the respondents have passed an order for recovery/deduction from pension of an amount of Rs.10,90,204/- (granted to him as Earned Leave at the time of his retirement on 31.12.2021) which shall be recovered one time or in 24 equal installments starting from January, 2023. (B).For issuance of writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing/setting aside letter dated 28.07.2022 (Annexure-4) issued by the Director, Higher Education to the Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University and other universities whereby and whereunder the respondents have fixed the earned leave of 180 days till the issuance of Notification dated 06.08.2021 and after the notified dated 06.08.2021, the earned leave shall be counter for 300 days and accordingly fixed the cutoff date as 06.08.2021 for calculation of earned leave which is against the Statute on Minimum Qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in Universities and colleges and measures for the Maintenance of standards in Higher Education-2021 in pursuance of UGC Regulation, 2018. (C).Further prays for Stay of the operation/implementation/execution of order/letter contained in memo no. PEN/827 dated 20.01.2023 issued by the Registrar, Ranchi University. 3. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, read as under: The petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 793 of 2021 was initially appointed on the post of lecturer as teaching staff on the recommendation of University Selection Committee, Bihar vide memo dated 23.10.1982 and was lastly working as Reader in the subject of Economics under respondent-Kolhan University, Chaibasa. The petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 5018 of 2022 are the retired teaching employees of Ranchi University. The petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 5018 of 2022 are the retired teaching employees of Ranchi University. The petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 511 of 2023 was initially appointed on 14.08.1978 as lecturer and lastly retired as Head and Dean (Commerce), Ranchi University on 31.12.2021. 4. The grievance of the writ petitioners are in two fold. Firstly, it has been prayed that since by way of resolution dated 06.08.2011 the leave encashment for non-teaching employees of the colleges and universities have been enhanced from 180 days to 300 days the said benefit ought to have been extended to the writ petitioners as the petitioners are teaching employee of the university; and secondly the State Government employees/officers since have been paid gratuity to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- (twenty lakhs) as per 7th Pay Revision w.e.f. 01.01.2016 the benefit of same is also to be extended to teaching employees of the university. 5. The case of the writ petitioners is that the State Government has come out with a statute in pursuance to UGC Regulation, 2018 incorporating an amendment in Section 71 of the Jharkhand State University Act (amended and as adopted), 2000 [hereinafter referred to as Act, 2000 (amended)] whereby the officers/teachers and librarian, Directors of Physical Education and sports of the universities and colleges [constituent and affiliated] has been decided to be at par so far it relates to payment of pension/gratuity and ex gratia compensation, particularly, the specific decision has been taken that the gratuity shall be paid at par with the officers of the State Government as per 7th Pay Revision w.e.f. 01.01.2016 but the enhanced quantum of the amount of gratuity has not been extended to the teaching employees of university without assigning any reason. 6. The writ petitioners in the backdrop of the decision taken by virtue of amendment in Section 71 of the Universities Act, 2000 are agitating the grievance that they are entitled for the amount of enhanced gratuity to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- [twenty lakhs] w.e.f. 01.01.2016 since teaching staffs of the Universities have been decided to be treated at par with the State Government employee/officer w.e.f. 01.01.2016, hence the writ petitioners are entitled for payment of enhanced gratuity to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- w.e.f. 01.01.2016 but the same has not been extended. 20,00,000/- [twenty lakhs] w.e.f. 01.01.2016 since teaching staffs of the Universities have been decided to be treated at par with the State Government employee/officer w.e.f. 01.01.2016, hence the writ petitioners are entitled for payment of enhanced gratuity to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- w.e.f. 01.01.2016 but the same has not been extended. Further grievance of the writ petitioner is that they are entitled for the leave encashment of 300 days but the State Government through the Department of Higher and Technical Education vide letter dated 28.07.2022 has come out with a decision by communicating the same to the concerned University that the leave encashment of maximum period of 300 days will be admissible but prior to 06.08.2021 it will be admissible only for the period of 180 days and after 06.08.2021 it will be admissible for a maximum period of 300 days. 7. It is the contention of the writ petitioners that when the UGC Regulation, 2018 has directed, by way of aforesaid regulation, to give the benefit of leave encashment for the maximum period of 300 days there is no occasion for the State authority to deviate with it by giving cut-off date of 06.08.2021 for extending the benefit of leave encashment for a maximum for period of 300 days after the cut-off date and prior to that it has been decided the admissibility of maximum period of leave encashment for a period of 180 days. The ground has been agitated that once the University Grant Commission (in short ‘Commission’) has come out with the regulation the same in view of provision of Section 26 of the University act, 1956 have its binding effect upon the State Universities and hence the writ petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of leave encashment for the maximum period of 300 days and not that of 180 days. 8. The State has filed counter affidavit (In WPS No. 793 of 2021) wherein stand has been taken at paragraph 11 that ‘so far claim of petitioner pertaining to gratuity payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- is concerned it is stated that the same is under process’. A supplementary counter affidavit dated 01.03.2023 has also been filed on behalf of State wherein it has been stated at paragraph 12 that ‘in pursuance to the letter no. 492 it is stated that the petitioners claim for Rs. 20,00,000/- is concerned it is stated that the same is under process’. A supplementary counter affidavit dated 01.03.2023 has also been filed on behalf of State wherein it has been stated at paragraph 12 that ‘in pursuance to the letter no. 492 it is stated that the petitioners claim for Rs. 20,00,000/- gratuity has been accepted and the payment for the same will be made in due course with effect from 01.01.2016‘. 9. Upon this, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the amount of gratuity has though been enhanced and decided to be extended w.e.f. 01.01.2016 as per the amendment incorporated under Section 71 of the University Act, 2000 as such the aforesaid amount ought to have been given without any delay but even after lapse of seven years the aforesaid amount has not been paid hence the petitioners are entitled to get the amount of gratuity along with statutory interest. 10. The grievance so far it relates to benefit of leave encashment is concerned, learned counsel for the State and the University has submitted that the Regulation, 2018 of the University Grant Commission although has provided the admissibility of the leave encashment for the maximum period of 300 days but the same would not be ipso facto applied to the State rather it will be effective from the date of its adoption by the State Government and the State by virtue of notification dated 06.08.2021 has adopted the same whereby and whereunder the benefit of encashment of leave is decided to be given in terms of UGC Regulation, 2018 by the State from the date of notification i.e., from 06.08.2021 and hence prior to 06.08.2021 the admissibility which was prevailing i.e., the encashment of leave for a period of 180 days will be given to one or the other teaching employees and after 06.08.2021 i.e., the date of adoption of UGC Regulation, 2018 the leave encashment for 300 days will be granted. Learned counsel for the respondents in the aforesaid premises has submitted that the claim of the writ petitioner for entitlement of leave encashment for a period of 300 days even prior to 06.08.2021 is having no force. 11. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the documents including UGC Regulation, 2018. 12. 11. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the documents including UGC Regulation, 2018. 12. Prayers in these writ petitions are of two folds: First one for disbursement of gratuity i.e., as to what would be the quantum - whether it is 20,00,000/- or else; and date of its implementation i.e., w.e.f. 01.01.2016 from the date the petitioners are claiming and whether the amount of gratuity is to be paid along with statutory interest on its delayed payment? 13. The gratuity is the part of pension, as would appear from Section 71 of the Jharkhand Universities Act, 2000 which contains a provision for disbursement of Pension/Gratuity, Ex gratia compensation. The aforesaid amendment provides that the gratuity shall be at par with the employees and officers of the State Government in 7th Pay Scale w.e.f 01.01.2016. For ready reference, the aforesaid provision is referred hereunder: 71. Pensions, gratuity, insurance and provident fund. – (1) The University shall, subject to such manners and conditions as may be prescribed by the Statutes, constitute any pension, gratuity, insurance or provident fund, as it may deem fit for the benefit of its officers, teachers and other employees(excluding those who are members of public services of India and whose services are lent to the University under section 66.) (2) Where any such pension, gratuity, insurance or provident fund is constituted in this manner, the State Government may declare that the provisions of the Provident Funds Act, 1925 (Act No. 19 of 1925) shall apply to the said Fund, as if that fund State Provident fund. The State in its counter affidavit has not disputed the admissibility of the gratuity to be paid as prayed by the petitioners, as would appear from paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit and paragraph 12 of the supplementary counter affidavit, which read as under: “11. So far claim of the petitioner pertaining to gratuity payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- is concerned it is stated that the same is under process.” ‘12. in pursuance to the letter no. 492 it is stated that the petitioners claim for Rs. 20,00,000/- gratuity has been accepted and the payment for the same will be made in due course with effect from 01.01.2016‘. The State since is admitting the entitlement of the amount of gratuity of the writ petitioners to extent of Rs. in pursuance to the letter no. 492 it is stated that the petitioners claim for Rs. 20,00,000/- gratuity has been accepted and the payment for the same will be made in due course with effect from 01.01.2016‘. The State since is admitting the entitlement of the amount of gratuity of the writ petitioners to extent of Rs. 20,00,000/- as per statement made at paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit and 12 of the supplementary counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that the claim for Rs. 20,00,000/-on the gratuity head has been accepted and the payment of the same will be made in due course but within which time it will be paid there is no averment to that effect. Since gratuity is the part of the pension and as such the same is not bounty and it is now become a fundamental right as per the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar &Ors. reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330 . For ready reference, paragraph 33 of the judgment is quoted as under: "33. Having due regard to the above decisions, we are of the opinion that the right of the petitioner to receive pension is property under Article 31(1) and by a mere executive order the State had no power to withhold the same. Similarly, the said claim is also property under Article 19(1)(f) and it is not saved by sub-article (5) of Article 19. Therefore, it follows that the order, dated June 12, 1968, denying the petitioner right to receive pension affects the fundamental right of the petitioner under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution, and as such the writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable. It may be that under the Pension Act (Act 23 of 5 1871) there is a bar against a civil court entertaining any suit relating to the matters mentioned therein. That does not stand in the way of writ of mandamus being issued to the State to property consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension according to law." The moment the gratuity or part thereof is not found to be bounty and the State Government has taken decision to extend the benefit of enhanced quantum of gratuity amount to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- w.e.f. 01.01.2016, it is the bounden duty of the State Government to release the aforesaid amount but the amount still has not been released. However, statement has been made without disputing the aforesaid entitlement of the writ petitioners to be paid. 14. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the State Government through the Department of Higher and Technical Education is required to release the fund forthwith for its onward transmission in favour of the writ petitioners. 15. The State since has admitted the claim and rightly admitted due to mandate of the amended provision of Section 71 of State Universities Act but it has not been paid even after lapse of seven years and as such on account of delayed payment of the gratuity amount which the writ petitioners are legally entitled to is required to be paid along with statutory interest. But the question would be that the statutory interest from which date since the amendment has been incorporated in Section 71 of the Jharkhand University Act, 2000 from 06.08.2021 and the notification of giving at par benefit to the teaching employees of the Universities with the State Government employees has been taken to be extended w.e.f. 01.01.2016 so far as amount of gratuity is concerned which has been notified by virtue of notification dated 06.08.2021 and hence even though the same has been held applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2016 but the relevant date for statutory interest would be the day when such decision of treating of teaching employees of the universities at par with the State Government employees will be admissible i.e., 06.08.2021 irrespective of the fact that it would be applicable from 01.01.2016. 16. Accordingly, the interest over the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- shall be paid in favour of writ petitioners w.e.f. from 06.08.2021 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of order irrespective of the fact that it will be applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2016, from the date the statute was notified on 06.08.2021. 17. 16. Accordingly, the interest over the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- shall be paid in favour of writ petitioners w.e.f. from 06.08.2021 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of order irrespective of the fact that it will be applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2016, from the date the statute was notified on 06.08.2021. 17. So far as second prayer i.e., the entitlement of the writ petitioners for leave encashment for 300 days is concerned which the writ petitioners are claiming on the basis of UGC Regulation, 2018 whereby and whereunder the University Grant Commission has given a guideline of admissibility of leave encashment for a maximum period of 300 days and as such the UGC Regulation, 2018 since is binding upon the State Government hence the writ petitioners are entitled to leave encashment for a period of 300 days but it has been submitted that contrary to same the decision has been taken to compute the leave encashment for a period of 180 days prior to 06.08.2021. 18. While on the other hand, learned counsel for the State and the University have jointly submitted that the Regulation of University Grant Commission cannot be ipso facto applicable to the teaching employees of the University rather such regulation will be adopted by the State only when the rule with respect to such adoption will have to be amended making such employees entitled for the benefit of regulation of 2018. Herein, the aforesaid regulation of 2018 regarding admissibility of the leave encashment for a maximum period of 300 days has been adopted by virtue of decision taken as contained in letter no. 963 dated 06.08.2021 and hence communication dated 06.08.2021 has been taken to be a cut-off date for making admissibility of the leave encashment for the maximum period of 300 days and prior to that for a period of 180 days. 19. Thus the question of adoption of UGC Regulation is the main objection taken on behalf of respondents. There is no dispute about the fact that the University Grant Commission Act has been carved out in the year 1956 which contains a proviso as under Section 12 regarding functions of the Commission. Section 14 speaks about consequence of University in failure to comply with the recommendation of the Commission and Section 26 speaks about the power to make regulation. Section 14 speaks about consequence of University in failure to comply with the recommendation of the Commission and Section 26 speaks about the power to make regulation. Section 28 provides the rules and regulations framed under UGC Act is required to be passed before each house of the parliament and when both the houses agrees then the rules and regulations can be given effect. For ready reference Section 12, 14, 26 and 28 are reproduced hereunder as: 12. Section 28 provides the rules and regulations framed under UGC Act is required to be passed before each house of the parliament and when both the houses agrees then the rules and regulations can be given effect. For ready reference Section 12, 14, 26 and 28 are reproduced hereunder as: 12. Functions of the Commission.—It shall be the general duty of the Commission to take, in consultation with the Universities or other bodies concerned, all such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and co-ordination of University education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities, and for the purpose of performing its functions under this Act, the Commission may— (a) inquire into the financial needs of Universities; (b) allocate and disburse, out of the Fund of the Commission, grants to Universities established or incorporated by or under a Central Act for the maintenance and development of such Universities or for any other general or specified purpose; (c) allocate and disburse, out of the Fund of the Commission, such grants to other Universities as it may deem [necessary or appropriate for the development of such Universities or for the maintenance, or development, or both, of any specified activities of such Universities] or for any other general or specified purpose: Provided that in making any grant to any such University, the Commission shall give due consideration to the development of the University concerned, its financial needs, the standard attained by it and the national purposes which it may serve; [(cc) allocate and disburse out of the Fund of the Commission, such grants to institutions deemed to be Universities in pursuance of a declaration made by the Central Government under section 3, as it may deem necessary, for one or more of the following purposes, namely:— (i) for maintenance in special cases, (ii) for development, (iii) for any other general or specified purpose;] 3 [(ccc) establish, in accordance with the regulations made under this Act, institutions for providing common facilities, services and programmes for a group of universities or for the universities in general and maintain such institutions or provide for their maintenance by allocating and disbursing out of the Fund of the Commission such grants as the Commission may deem necessary;] (d) recommend to any University the measures necessary for the improvement of University education and advise the University upon the action to be taken for the purpose of implementing such recommendation; (e) advise the Central Government or any State Government on the allocation of any grants to Universities for any general or specified purpose out of the Consolidated Fund of India or the Consolidated Fund of the State, as the case may be; (f) advise any authority, if such advise is asked for, on the establishment of a new University or on proposals connected with the expansion of the activities of any University; (g) advise the Central Government or any State Government or University on any question which may be referred to the Commission by the Central Government or the State Government or the University, as the case may be; (h) collect information on all such matters relating to University education in India and other countries as it thinks fit and make the same available to any University; (i) require a University to furnish it with such information as may be needed relating to the financial position of the University or the studies in the various branches of learning undertaken in that University, together with all the rules and regulations relating to the standards of teaching and examination in that University respecting each of such branches of learning; (j) perform such other functions as may be prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by the Commission for advancing the cause of higher education in India or as may be incidental or conducive to the discharge of the above functions. 14. Consequences of failure of Universities to comply with recommendations of the Commission.—If any University 3 [grants affiliation in respect of any course of study to any college referred to in sub-section (5) of section 12A in contravention of the provisions of that sub-section or] fails within a reasonable time to comply with any recommendation made by the Commission under section 12 or section 13, 4 [or contravenes the provisions of any rule made under clause (f) or clause (g) of sub-section (2) of section 25, or of any regulation made under clause (e) or clause (f) or clause (g) of section 26,] the Commission, after taking into consideration the cause, if any, shown by the University 5 [for such failure or contravention,] may withhold from the University the grants proposed to be made out of the Fund of the Commission 26. Power to make regulations.—(1) The Commission [may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make regulations] consistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder,— (a) regulating the meetings of the Commission and the procedure for conducting business thereat; (b) regulating the manner in which and the purposes for which persons may be associated with the Commission under section 9; 1. Subs. by Act 59 of 1984, s. 5, for sub-section (3) (w.e.f. 1-10-1984). 2. Subs. by s. 6, ibid., for ?may make regulations? (w.e.f. 1-10-1984). 11 (c) specifying the terms and conditions of service of the employees appointed by the Commission; (d) specifying the institutions or class of institutions which may be recognised by the Commission under clause (f) of section 2; (e) defining the qualifications that should ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University, having regard to the branch of education in which he is expected to give instruction; (f) defining the minimum standards of instruction for the grant of any degree by any University; (g) regulating the maintenance of standards and the co-ordination of work or facilities in Universities. 1 [(h) regulating the establishment of institutions referred to in clause (ccc) of section 12 and other matters relating to such institutions; (i) specifying the matters in respect of which fees may be charged, and scales of fees in accordance with which fees may be charged, by a college under sub-section (2) of section 12A; (j) specifying the manner in which an inquiry may be conducted under sub-section (4) of section 12A.] (2) No regulation shall be made under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) 1 [(or clause (h) or clause (i) or clause (j)] of sub-section (1) except with the previous approval of the Central Government. 1 [(3) The power to make regulations conferred by this section [except clause (i) and clause (j) of sub-section (1)] shall include the power to give retrospective effect from a date not earlier than the date of commencement of this Act, to the regulations or any of them but no retrospective effect shall be given to any regulation so as to prejudicially affect the interests of any person to whom such regulation may be applicable.] 28. Laying of rules and regulations before Parliament.—Every rule and every regulation made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session, or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or regulation or both Houses agree that the rule or regulation should not be made, the rule or regulation shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule or regulation. It is thus evident from the aforesaid provision that the University Grant Commission has been established with the determination of the standards of universities, promotion and co-ordination of University education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities etc. 20. It is thus evident from the aforesaid provision that the University Grant Commission has been established with the determination of the standards of universities, promotion and co-ordination of University education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities etc. 20. The binding effect of the UGC Regulation has been dealt with by Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Kalyani Mahtivanan vs. K.V. Jeyaraj & Ors [ (2015) 6 SCC 363 wherein while taking into consideration the UGC Act, 1956 the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold at paragraph 62 as under: “62. In view of the discussion as made above, we hold: 62.1. To the extent the State legislation is in conflict with the Central legislation including subordinate legislation made by the Central legislation under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List shall be repugnant to the Central legislation and would be inoperative. 62.2. The UGC Regulations being passed by both the Houses of Parliament, though a subordinate legislation has binding effect on the universities to which it applies. 62.3. The UGC Regulations, 2010 are mandatory to teachers and other academic staff in all the Central universities and colleges thereunder and the institutions deemed to be universities whose maintenance expenditure is met by UGC. 62.4. The UGC Regulations, 2010 are directory for the universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions under the purview of the State legislation as the matter has been left to the State Government to adopt and implement the Scheme. Thus, the UGC Regulations, 2010 are partly mandatory and is partly directory. 62.5. The UGC Regulations, 2010 having not been adopted by the State of Tamil Nadu, the question of conflict between the State legislation and the Statutes framed under the Central legislation does not arise. Once they are adopted by the State Government, the State legislation to be amended appropriately. In such case also there shall be no conflict between the State legislation and the Central legislation.” [Emphasis supplied] It is evident from the ratio laid down at paragraph 62.4 that the UGC Regulations, 2010 are directory for the universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions under the purview of the State legislation as the matter has been left to the State Government to adopt and implement the Scheme. Thus, the UGC Regulations, 2010 are partly mandatory and is partly directory. Thus, the UGC Regulations, 2010 are partly mandatory and is partly directory. The paragraph 62.5 of the judgment reflects that the UGC Regulations, 2010 having not been adopted by the State of Tamil Nadu, the question of conflict between the State legislation and the Statutes framed under the Central legislation does not arise. Once they are adopted by the State Government, the State legislation is to be amended appropriately. In such case also there shall be no conflict between the State legislation and the Central legislation. 21. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further dealt with the issue of binding effect of UGC Regulation in the judgment rendered in Jagdish Prasad Sharma & Ors Vs. State of Bihar & Ors [ (2013) 8 SCC 633 , wherein it has been held that the Commission is empowered to frame regulations under Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956, for the promotion and coordination of university education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research. The consideration has been made in that judgment as to whether in the process of framing such regulation, the Commission could alter the service conditions of the employees which were entirely under the control of the States in regard to State institutions. The Hon’ble Apex Court answering the same has been pleased to hold by taking into consideration the provision of Section 67 (a) which specifically provides that age of superannuation of non-teaching employees shall be 62 years and in no case, should the period of service of such non-teaching employees be extended beyond 62 years. A difference had been made in regard to the teaching faculty whose services could be extended up to 65 years in the manner laid down in the University Statutes. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the light of aforesaid provision as contained under Section 67-A has been pleased to observe that the right of the Commission to frame regulations having the force of law is admitted. However, the State Governments are also entitled to legislate with matters relating to education under List III Entry 25. So long as the State legislation did not encroach upon the jurisdiction of Parliament, the State legislation would obviously have primacy over any other law. If there was any legislation enacted by the Central Government under List III Entry 25, both would have to be treated on a par with each other. So long as the State legislation did not encroach upon the jurisdiction of Parliament, the State legislation would obviously have primacy over any other law. If there was any legislation enacted by the Central Government under List III Entry 25, both would have to be treated on a par with each other. In the absence of any such legislation by the Central Government under List III Entry 25, the regulations framed by way of delegated legislation have to yield to the plenary jurisdiction of the State Government under List III Entry 25. For ready reference paragraph 69 and 77 are quoted as under: “69. To some extent there is an air of redundancy in the prayers made on behalf of the respondents in the submissions made regarding the applicability of the Scheme to the State and its universities, colleges and other educational institutions. The elaborate arguments advanced in regard to the powers of UGC to frame such regulations and/or to direct the increase in the age of teachers from 62 to 65 years as a condition precedent for receiving aid from UGC, appears to have little relevance to the actual issue involved in these cases. That the Commission is empowered to frame regulations under Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956, for the promotion and coordination of university education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research, cannot be denied. The question that assumes importance is whether in the process of framing such regulations, the Commission could alter the service conditions of the employees which were entirely under the control of the States in regard to State institutions? 77. We are inclined to agree with such submission mainly because of the fact that in the amended provisions of Section 67(a) it has been categorically stated that the age of superannuation of non-teaching employees would be 62 years and, in no case, should the period of service of such non-teaching employees be extended beyond 62 years. A difference had been made in regard to the teaching faculty whose services could be extended up to 65 years in the manner laid down in the University Statutes. There is no ambiguity that the final decision to enhance the age of superannuation of teachers within a particular State would be that of the State itself. A difference had been made in regard to the teaching faculty whose services could be extended up to 65 years in the manner laid down in the University Statutes. There is no ambiguity that the final decision to enhance the age of superannuation of teachers within a particular State would be that of the State itself. The right of the Commission to frame regulations having the force of law is admitted. However, the State Governments are also entitled to legislate with matters relating to education under List III Entry 25. So long as the State legislation did not encroach upon the jurisdiction of Parliament, the State legislation would obviously have primacy over any other law. If there was any legislation enacted by the Central Government under List III Entry 25, both would have to be treated on a par with each other [Ed.: But see Articles 254(1) and 246 of the Constitution.] . In the absence of any such legislation by the Central Government under List III Entry 25, the regulations framed by way of delegated legislation have to yield to the plenary jurisdiction of the State Government under List III Entry 25.” The judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Sharma (Supra) has been followed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. J. Vijayan & Ors vs. State of Kerela & Ors. [2022 SCC OnLine SC 958]. The Hon’ble Apex Court however has dealt with the said issue in the case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors [ (2022) 5 SCC 179 ] wherein by taking into the factual aspect regarding the condition for appointment of vice chancellor the grievance has been raised that that the minimum qualification prescribed under the UGC Regulation as under Regulation 7.3.0 that a person shall have 10 years of teaching work experience as a Professor in the university system and it also provides for constitution of a Search Committee consisting of a nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, a nominee of the Chairman of the UGC, a nominee of the Syndicate/Executive Council of the University. The Search Committee has to recommend the names of suitable candidate for appointment as Vice-Chancellor of a University. The Search Committee has to recommend the names of suitable candidate for appointment as Vice-Chancellor of a University. The grievance of the writ petitioner in that case was that the State of Gujarat passed a resolution on 11.11.2009 adopting the Scheme and since the Scheme has been adopted, all regulations framed by the UGC are binding upon the State of Gujarat including the respondent SP University. It was case of the writ petitioner-appellant that ignoring Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, a Search Committee was constituted under Section 10(2) (d) of the Sardar Patel University Act, 1955 on 29.07.2016 with no nominee of the Chairman of the UGC and even as per Section 10(2) (d) the Search Committee has only the authority to recommend a panel of suitable candidates. The petitioner had also raised the grievance that the respondent no. 4 was not having teaching work experience as a profession for a period of ten years. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the light of aforesaid premise, has been pleased to hold that once the UGC has adopted and implemented basis upon the Central Financial assistance to the extent of 80 % of the maintenance expenditure, the State Government and the SP University are bound by the UGC Regulations, 2010 and in no circumstances the eligibility criteria for the post of Vice-Chancellor and the constitution of the Search Committee for appointment of a Vice-Chancellor be altered. For ready reference paragraph 29 of the judgment rendered in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi Vs. State of Gujarat & Orsare quoted as under: “29. It is not in dispute that the SP University is receiving Central financial assistance under the Scheme and it is included in the State Universities receiving Central financial assistance as per Section 12(b) of the UGC Act, 1956. Therefore, having adopted the UGC Scheme and implemented the same and getting Central financial assistance to the extent of 80% of the maintenance expenditure, the State Government and the SP University are bound by the UGC Regulations, 2010. The UGC Regulations, 2010 are superseded by the UGC Regulations, 2018. However, the eligibility criteria for the post of Vice-Chancellor and the constitution of the Search Committee for appointment of a Vice-Chancellor remains the same. The UGC Regulations, 2010 are superseded by the UGC Regulations, 2018. However, the eligibility criteria for the post of Vice-Chancellor and the constitution of the Search Committee for appointment of a Vice-Chancellor remains the same. Therefore, the State of Gujarat and the universities thereunder including the SP University are bound to follow UGC Regulations, 2010 and UGC Regulations, 2018.” From bare reading of the judgment rendered in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors (supra) it appears that the said case pertains to eligibility criteria as provided in the UGC Regulation and once it has been adopted there is no reason to deviate from the same but from the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court either in the case of Jagdish Prasad Sharma & Ors Vs. State of Bihar & Ors (supra) followed in the case of Dr. J. Vijayan & Ors (supra) and in the case of Kalyani Mahtivanan vs. K.V. Jeyaraj & Ors (supra), it is evident that the service condition regarding enhancement of the age so far as fact of the case of Jagdish Prasad Sharma & Ors Vs. State of Bihar & Ors (supra) is concerned has been negated to be altered to be extended to 65 years in view of prevalence of the State statute in this regard. In the case of Kalyani Mahtivanan vs. K.V. Jeyaraj & Ors (supra) it is evident therefrom that the UGC regulation if adopted by the State Government the State legislation will have to be amended properly. 22. This Court is now proceeding to examine the contention raised on behalf of the parties as to whether the admissibility of maximum period of 300 days if provided in the UGC Regulation, 2018 ipso facto applies to the writ petitioners without its adoption by the State Government and whether its effectiveness will be from the date of its adoption i.e. herein 06.08.2021 or otherwise and in that view of the matter the writ petitioner can be held to be entitled for leave encashment of 300 days merely because non-teaching employees are getting 300 days admissibility of leave encashment. 23. 23. This Court has discussed the legal position by taking consideration the statutory mandate of the UGC Regulation as referred hereinabove coupled with the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases referred hereinabove, wherefrom it is evident that unless the regulation of UGC is adopted no benefit can be accrued to the writ petitioner. The matter would have been different if the issue of appointment is of the different faculty like that of Associate Professor, Associate Professor, Professor or Vice-chancellor and in that view of the matter there cannot be any deviation from the eligibility criteria as fixed by the UGC in view of provision of Section 26 of the Act, 1956 since the share is being extended by the Central Government to the respective universities as per the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors (supra) but the promotion, appointment is not the issue herein rather the issue involved herein is the benefit on account of leave encashment. The UGC regulation, 2018 has provided the admissibility of maximum period of leave encashment for a period of 300 days but the same has been adopted by the State of Jharkhand by virtue of its adoption from 06.08.2021, therefore the aforesaid adoption made by the State Government as per legal position the entitlement of the writ petitioner will be in terms of the regulation and the State is required to amend the statutory provision accordingly. 24. The statute has been amended by way of notification that the admissibility of leave encashment of 300 days is after 06.08.2021 and prior to that it will be of the maximum period of 180. 25. The ground although has been taken that non-teaching staffs are being given admissibility of leave encashment of 300 days and hence the writ petitioners, being the teaching staffs, may also be entitled for admissibility of leave encashment of 300 days but the same reasoning cannot be said to be just and proper reason being that the teaching employees are in different cadres of the service that of non-teaching staffs, whose service condition, eligibility are different to that of teaching staffs. The teaching employees is governed under the State Government under its statute formulated but in view of Section 26 if any rule will be formulated by way of regulation by the U.G.C the decision so taken by the regulatory body will be applicable to the teaching employees of the Universities. 26. Herein, the writ petitioners will be entitled for admissibility of maximum period of leave encashment of 300 days after 06.08.2021 and hence by virtue of Regulation, 2018 they are entitled for maximum period of leave encashment of 300 days after 06.08.2021 but due to its non-adoption by the State prior to 06.08.2021 the writ petitioner will be entitled to get admissibility of leave encashment of maximum period of 180 days. Taking into consideration these facts, in particular the fact that statute by way of notification has been published on 06.08.2021 wherein at Chapter 7 admissibility of maximum period of leave encashment has been mentioned, the Director, Higher Education vide communication dated 28.07.2022 clarified that prior to cut-off date i.e., the date of notification dated 06.08.2021 the admissibility of maximum period of leave encashment will be 180 days and after 06.08.2021 it will be 300 days, which the petitioners have challenged. 27. This Court on the basis of discussions made hereinabove is of the view that so far as the claim of the writ petitioner for holding them entitled for admissibility of maximum period of 300 days prior to 06.08.202 1is having no substance. Accordingly, the prayer made in this respect is hereby rejected. In view thereof, the communication by way of letter dated 28.07.2022 issued by the Director, Higher Education requires no interference by this Court. 28. In the result, the writ petitions are disposed of to the extent as under: (I).The petitioners will be entitled for the amount of gratuity at par with the State Government to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- [Twenty Lakhs] w.e.f. 01.01.2016. However, the interest over the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- shall be paid in favour of writ petitioners w.e.f. from 06.08.2021, from the date of notification, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of order. (II).The writ petitioners will be held entitled for admissibility of leave encashment for a maximum period of 300 days w.e.f. 06.08.2021 and prior to that they will be entitled for admissibility of leave encashment for a maximum period of 180 days. (II).The writ petitioners will be held entitled for admissibility of leave encashment for a maximum period of 300 days w.e.f. 06.08.2021 and prior to that they will be entitled for admissibility of leave encashment for a maximum period of 180 days. In consequence thereof, the communication dated 28.07.2022 issued by the Director, Higher Education requires no interference by this Court. (iii).So far writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 511 of 2023 is concerned wherein impugned order dated 20.01.2023 has been assailed since the amount of leave encashment for a maximum period of 300 days even prior of 06.08.2021 has been disbursed, this Court is of the view that the issue of entitlement of the admissibility of leave encashment for a maximum period of 300 days before 06.08.2021 has been decided and prior to that they will be entitled for admissibility of leave encashment for a maximum period of 180 days, therefore, the amount which is excess to the entitlement is required to be recovered. Accordingly, Memo No. PEN/827 dated 20.01.2023 (Annexure 3) issued by the Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the respondents have passed an order for recovery/deduction from pension of an amount of Rs.10,90,204/- (granted to him as Earned Leave at the time of his retirement on 31.12.2021) requires no interference by this Court. A question may arise that why recovery. But the position of law is well settled that if the excess to the entitlement is paid the same being the money of tax payers is required to be refunded to the State exchequer. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors [ (2012) 8 SCC 417 ] in particular paragraph 14, which reads as under: 14. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as “taxpayers' money” which belongs neither to the officers who have effected overpayment nor to the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in such situations. The question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not, may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by the government officers may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism, etc. The question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not, may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by the government officers may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism, etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without the authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment. Even otherwise also, as per Clause 10.5 of the notification dated 06.08.2021, the employees concerned were required to furnish undertaking to the effect that if any excess payment is made the same shall be adjusted against the future payment due otherwise to the beneficiary, as such the petitioner has legal obligation to repay the excess amount. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors Vs. Jagdev Singh, wherein the Hon’ble Court taking into consideration the case rendered in the case of State of Punjab & Ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors [ (2015) 4 SCC 334 ], in particular condition with regard to retired employee, as the case herein, i.e., condition no. (ii), ‘Recovery from the retired employees or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery‘ has held that excess amount is required to be refunded even if the employee has retired, if undertaking to that effect has been given. Here it is evident from the notification dated 06.08.2021 which contains a clause under Clause 10.5 that the employee concerned was required to furnish undertaking. For ready reference, paragraph 11 of the judgment rendered in High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors Vs. Jagdev Singh (supra), is quoted as under: 11. The principle enunciated in Proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. For ready reference, paragraph 11 of the judgment rendered in High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors Vs. Jagdev Singh (supra), is quoted as under: 11. The principle enunciated in Proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking. In view of principles laid down in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana &Ors Vs. Jagdev Singh (supra) the letter dated 20.01.2023 (Annexure 3) issued by the Registrar, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the respondents have passed an order for recovery/deduction from pension of an amount of Rs.10,90,204/- (granted to him as Earned Leave at the time of his retirement on 31.12.2021) which shall be recovered one time or in 24 equal installments starting from January, 2023, requires no interference by this Court on this ground also. Accordingly, the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 511 of 2023 stands dismissed. 29. In the result, writ petitions being W.P. (S) No. 793 of 2021 and W.P. (S) No. 5018 of 2022 are partly allowed and W.P. (S) No. 511 of 2023 stands dismissed. 30. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stands disposed of.