1 For the petitoioner: Mr. Parveen Kumar Chandel, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, h Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2.g Mr. C.N Singh, Advocate, for i respondent No.3.

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

Whether approved for reporting?

By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has sought direction to the respondents to release the withheld amount of gratuity of Rs.3,02,975/- and leave encashment of Rs.2,71,730/-¹Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner was appointed as a Physical Education T.eacher (PET) with respondent No.3-School on 11.04.1983 and has retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2011. f

3. Respondent No.3-School was in receipt of 95% grant-in-aid from respondtents No.1 and 2 and remaining 5% was contributedu by respondent No.3-School from its own resources too the Teachers and allied staff. It has been averred that the entitlement to the aid from the State to the extent of h95% is in terms of the judgment dated 09.09.1992 passed by gthis Court in CWP No.413/1989 (Annexure P-1). The judgment ipassed by this Court was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1233-34 of 1993 on 10.05.1995.

4. It has been averred that the petitioner is entitled to the amount of gratuity and leave encashment from the respondents besides other retiral benefits. Out of the total amount of Rs.3,80,422/- towards gratuity, a sum of Rs.47,025/- has been paid to the petitioner through Life Insurance Corporation and the remaining amo.unt is Rs.3,02,975/- and no amount towards Leave encashment was paid and thus an amount of Rs.2,71,730/- is payable to the petitioner. f

5. The respondents have released the amount of gratuity and leave encasthment amounting to Rs.3,50,000/- each to Shri Om uPrakash, retired as Superintendent from the school in Janouary, 2009 and also to Shri Surender Dutt retired as Principal from the school in December 2003. However, hdespite making representation by the petitioner to the grespondents to release the withheld amount of gratuity and ileave encashment, no amount has been released in his favour.

6. The respondents-State has framed a policy governing the amount due towards gratuity and since the petitioner is entitled to the benefits even prior to 2008 being regular employee of respondent No.3-School, there is no bar in the scheme for claiming gratuity for the period of service rendered by him. .

7. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed reply/afÏdavit and have taken a plea that the maintenance grants are provided for meeting the deficit in the net fapproved expenditure on salary of approved staff of privately managed schools. So far as grant-in-aid is concertned, it is released exclusively for salary componenut and the same cannot be utilized for any other purpooses. As per the Grant-in-Aid Rules, 1997, there is no provision for the payment of gratuity and leave hencashment from State exchequer to the petitioner.g

8. It has been submitted that the State has not ireleased any grant towards gratuity and leave encashment to one Sh. Om Prakash, who was stated to have received the amount.

9. The State Government has notified Himachal Pradesh Privately Managed Recognized Government Aided & Private School Employees (Self Contributory) Pension and Gratuity Scheme, 2008, and under Section 6 of the said scheme, a provision is made for contribution towards p.ension funds. As per this scheme, it shall be mandatory for all the employees, who are recruited on or after 01.04.2008 to become member of the Schemfe. Each employee shall required to pay a monthly contribution of Rs.500/- per month and since the petitionert has not made any contribution towards Contribuutory Provident Fund, he is not entitled to any grant towarods gratuity/pension and leave encashment from the State.