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 privately run educational institutions concerned.

JUDGMENT :

(Ranjan Sharma, J.)

Notice. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2.

2. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal, at this stage, in view of the peculiar facts as borne out from the pleadings.

3. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the following prayer(s):-

“(i) That the Respondents may kindly be directed to release the gratuity and Leave Encashment due to the Petitioners with interest immediately, in the interest of justice.”

4. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Lecturers (College Cadre) in subjects of History, Mathematics, Chemistry, Biology and Hindi on different dates as mentioned in Para 3 of the writ petition in 95% Government Aided Privately Managed College i.e. Shri Vishnu S.D. College, Bhatoli, District Una. The petitioners retired from the service of the aforesaid college on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2017, 30.06.2018, 31.03.2012, 31.03.2016 and 29.02.2000 as mentioned in Para 4 of the writ petition.

5. The question as to whether the teachers of 95% Government Aided Privately Managed Colleges as in this case were entitled to the gratuity and leave encashment and if so on what analogy and to what extent stands adjudicated by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.60/2006, titled as Jagdev Katoch versus State of Himachal Pradesh & ors., decided on 20.06.2008, Annexure P-3. The operative part of the judgment reads as under:-

“Now, the question which arises for consideration is: by whom the gratuity in the present case is to be paid? The petitioner, as already noticed hereinabove, was to superannuate on 31.3.2005. The amount of gratuity is to be calculated from 12.8.1971 to 31.3.2005. The management of the college was dependent to the extent of 95% aid to be released under the rules framed by the State. The management had to defray the expenses to the extent of 5% only. The management as per rule 12-A, as noticed above, was bound to pay the gratuity to the petitioner and the State had to bear this expenditure to the extent of 95%. Consequently, it is held that the State Government will pay 95% amount of the gratuity to the petitioner and the remaining 5% has to be paid by respondent No.7-society.

The next question which fell for consideration is: whether the petitioner is entitled to leave encashment or not? The case of the petitioner has been turned down by merely stating that there is no provision for the grant of leave encashment to the petitioner. The leave encashment is a part of “salary” and the same could not be denied to the petitioner. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and another versus Senior Higher Secondary School, Lachhmangarh and others, (2005) 10 SCC 346 have held as under:

“The contention urged is that Section 16 refers to various conditions of service including pay whereas Section 29(1) refers only to 'scales of pay and allowances' and not the 'conditions of service'. Learned counsel submits that by implication, Section 29 excludes the benefit of leave encashment. We are unable to accept the above contention.

Section 16 confers a rule-making power on the State Government to regulate recruitment and conditions of service including conditions relating to qualifications, pay, gratuity, insurance, age of retirement, entitlement of leave, conduct and discipline etc. of employees of aided institutions. Section 16 has to be read and worked harmoniously with Section 29 which directs maintenance of parity in the scales of pay and allowances between employees of aided institutions and Government institutions.

As we have held above the expression 'pay and allowances in Section 29 read with wider definition of the word 'salary' in Section 2(r) of the Act has a very vide connotation. We have come to the conclusion that the expression includes benefit of leave encashment which is nothing bu