Statutory provisions governing service conditions that incorporate external government rules take precedence over inconsistent executive or government orders, ensuring that employees are entitled to the benefits mandated by the original legislative framework.

JUDGMENT :

IRSHAD ALI, J.

CMA No.95359 of 2018 - Application for substitution

1. Heard learned counsel for the the parties.

2. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, it has been stated that wife of the petitioner is legal heir, who has to be substituted on the place of petitioner No.2.

3. In view of reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the application is allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to carry out necessary incorporation in the array of parties during course of the day.

Order on Writ Petition

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional CSC for the respondent - State.

2. In the year 1978 the petitioners were initially appointed on the posts of Routine Grade Clerk in the office of the Registrar of the respondent No.3 w.e.f. 29.05.1978 and 24.07.1978 respectively and their services were confirmed w.e.f. 01.05.1981. On 01.08.1988 petitioner No.1 was granted promotion to the post of Junior Assistant and petitioner No.2 was granted promotion to the post of Junior Assistant w.e.f. 1.1.1990 and they were further granted promotion to the posts of Senior Assistant w.e.f. 25.6.1998 and 17.3.1990 respectively and on the post of Senior Assistant they were confirmed w.e.f. 25.6.1999 and 31.12.1992 respectively.

3. On 30.09.2012 petitioner No.1 retired from service while working on the posts of Senior Assistant and petitioner No.2 was retired as such w.e.f. 30.6.2011 and after their retirement the petitioners were granted all the post retiral benefits including pension, gratuity, group insurance and amount of G.P.F. except the amount payable to the petitioners in lieu of the benefit of leave encashment.

4. On 19.02.1974 respondent No.5 issued circular that service rules as applicable to the government employees shall be implemented till framing of service rules for the employees of the respondent No.3. However, no service rule has been framed for regulating the services of non teaching staff of the University and as such the service rules as applicable to the Government employee are still being implemented in respect of them.

5. On 01.07.1999 a Government Order was issued for granting leave encashment of 300 days (maximum) in place of 240 days (maximum) on the basis of the recommendations of Pay Committee, 1997. On 03.07.2000 another Government Order was issued whereby power to grant leave encashment for 300 days (maximum) in place of 240 days (maximum) was delegated to the head of departments of the State Government and the said benefit was made effective w.e.f. 1.7.1999.

6. On 31.08.2006 the Executive Council of the University held meeting wherein it was decided that the benefit of leave encashment of 300 days be made available to the non teaching staff of the University w.e.f. 1.7.1999 in accordance with Government Oorder dated 3.7.2000 mentioned above.

7. On 20.06.2007 the Finance Committee of the University held meeting in presence of the respondent Nо.2 wherein also the proposal of grant of leave encashment for 300 days in accordance with Government Order dated 3.7.2000 to the non teaching staff of the University was approved.

8. On 21.04.2012, petitioner No.1 submitted an application before the respondent No.5 thereby making prayer that he may be granted benefit of leave encashment after his retirement. On 03.07.2012, the Executive Council of the University held meeting wherein the matter o