JUDGMENT

G. S. Singhvi, J.:- The question which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether respondent Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to reimbursement of the amount paid to the teachers by way of leave encashment under the statutes framed by the Pune University.

2. Dr. Anagha Anant Nadkarni and Dr. Moreshwar J. Bedekar, who were employed as Professors in respondent No.1 college retired from service in November, 2003. They filed applications before Pune University Grievance Committee (for short, ‘the Committee’) for encashment of earned leave. The Committee passed order dated 3.5.2007 and recommended payment of the amount in lieu of earned leave. However, respondent No.1 did not act upon the recommendations of the Committee. Therefore, Dr. Anagha Anant Nadkarni and Dr. Moreshwar J. Bedekar filed Writ Petition Nos.8763 and 8775 of 2007 for issue of a mandamus to respondent No.1 to pay the amount of leave encashment. The same were disposed of by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court vide order dated 7.4.2008 along with 11 other writ petitions. The Division Bench relied upon order dated 22.1.2007 passed in Writ Petition No.4936/2006 – V. S. Agarkar v. The Chairman, Grievance Cell Committee, Pune University and others and held:

“. Therefore, there could not be any controversy over the issue of entitlement of the petitioners for encashment of unutilised earned leave on superannuation which in the case of V.S. Agarkar (supra) has been discussed at length and, therefore, we dispose of these petitions with a direction to the respondent-institution and the Principal that the Principal of the Institution where the petitioners were employed to pay to the petitioners leave encashment for maximum 180 days or lesser to the extent that the petitioners are entitled to and that they shall complete the exercise within a period of eight weeks from today. We further make it clear that the Institution after discharging their liability of payment of leave encashment as per the entitlement of the petitioners, are entitled to claim reimbursement by way of grant from the Respondent-State.”

3. By another order dated 9.6.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.2881/2007 – Khandesh College Education Society v. Arjun Hari Narkhede and others, the Division Bench of the High Court directed payment of leave encashment to the teachers in terms of the order passed in V. S. Agarkar’s case. Simultaneously, liberty was given to the institutions to seek reimbursement from the State. That order was modified on 20.6.2008 in the following terms:

“We have disposed of these petitions by common order dated 9.6.2008. It has been pointed out by the petitioner in W.P. No.6540/2007 that this court has observed that Grievance Committee has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that it is barred by delay and latches as the petitioner had approached the Grievance Committee after lapse of three years. It is submitted that this statement was made without proper instructions. In fact, the Grievance Committee had given a report in favour of the petitioner which was dealt by the Grievance Committee after petition came to be filed. We, therefore, record this to be read at the end of Paragraph No. 4 that later on Counsel has submitted as aforesaid. This does not in any manner affect the substantive relief granted by the court in favour of the petitioner.

2. Learned A.G.P. submitted that this court has observed in concluding Paragraph that respondent - institution will be entitled to claim reimbursement by way of grant from the respondent - State. Only correction requires to be done is that the liability of the State would be subject to claim of the respondent being admissible under law. Therefore, we add a sentence at the conclusion of Paragraph No. 9 if admissible under law. Our order be read accordingly.”

4. Khandesh College Education Society challenged the orders of the High Court in SLP (C) Nos.17039-17040/2008, which were disposed of by this Court vide order dated