Back
BIRENDRA KUMAR
Neyaz Ahmad @ Neyaj Ahmad Son of Late Reyaz Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar through Principal Secretary Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner seeks for issuance of command against the respondents to pay the leave encashement, gratuity and other retiral benefit to the petitioner.
2. Indisputably the petitioner retired from the post of teacher on 31.05.2013 from recognized Madarsa Mazharul Uloom at Parsa, P.O. Marjadwa, District-West Champaran.
3. The question for consideration is whether a teacher employed in non-government aided minority school is entitled for retiral benefit.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the resolution of the State Government bearing No.237 dated 20.02.1990, a copy at Annexure-1, as well as Memo No.2 dated 09.01.1990, a copy at Annexure-2, for his submission that petitioner is entitled for all the benefits including retiral benefits at par with the government school teachers.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State-respondents contends that in the counter affidavit they have distinguished between the minority institution and the Madarsa. However, learned counsel could not explain when he was confronted with use of the word ‘Madarsa’ in resolution No.237 dated 20.02.1990 which reads as follows:
The court established that the principle of parity in pay and allowances between government and minority school teachers is constitutionally mandated, and any deviation from this principle without a ....
Staff of 95% grant-in-aid colleges deemed akin to government employees for retiral benefits like gratuity and enhanced leave encashment; state bears 95% liability per precedents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of teachers in privately managed colleges to gratuity and leave encashment, with the financial liabilities to be borne by the priva....
Salary – Leave encashment is part of salary – In present case, management establishment was recipient of 70% aid, in form of grant – State cannot shrug its responsibility to shoulder its part of resp....
The court affirmed that under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme, the State is liable for the payment of retiral benefits to employees, and the appellant cannot shift this burden due to its litigation conduct.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
