IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on:-01.09.2025 Rao Lal Singh Public School . . . Petitioner Versus Ishwar Singh and another . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Chandan Singh, Advocate and Ms. Aarti Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.(ORAL)

The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari setting aside the judgment dated 21.02.2025, Annexure P-1, passed by respondent no.2-District Judge-cum-Educational Tribunal, Gurugram in CA-394-2022, whereby respondent no.1 has been held entitled to the benefit of leave encashment.

2. Learned counsel contended that the benefit has wrongly been given to respondent no.1, who retired as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) from the petitioner School on 31.03.2020 and all retiral benefits were duly given to him at that time. There was no provision for payment of leave encashment to school employees and accordingly it was not given nor was any order to that effect passed by the School. In the absence of any order of rejection, respondent no.1 was not entitled to file an appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal and order payment of leave encashment.

3. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that respondent no.1 has been held entitled to the benefit of leave encashment in terms of law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA-1037-2015 titled Ramvir Sharma and others v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 21.03.2017. The findings by the Tribunal are as under:

22. The Division Bench of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in LPA No. 1037 No 2015 (O&M) titled as Ramvir Sharma and others Versus State of Haryana and others, had set aside the order passed by learned Single Judge with regard to declining the benefit of leave encashment and held entitled the appellant to the benefit of leave encashment which shall be paid by the management of the school without claiming any reimbursement from the State Government under the grant in aid scheme and also found that teaching and non teaching employees have been statutory held entitled to the benefit of earned leave under Sub Rule (3) and Sub Rule (4) of Rule 91 (ibid). Sub Rule (5) has to be therefore read in conjunction with these sub rules and upto its harmonious interpretation sub Rule (5) has to be construed to mean that while leave travel concession, bonus and medical reimbursement etc shall be totally at the discretion of the Management, the benefit of leave encashment to the extent it is statutory admissible under Sub Rule (3) and Sub Rule (4) has to be granted to the teaching and non teaching employees. The discretion in the matter of leave encashment thus stands restricted only to the extent that the benefit of leave encashment beyond the minimum period of leave encashment mentioned under sub rule (3) and sub rule (4) shall be the discretion of the management.

23. The abovesaid decision of Hon'ble Division Bench was duly considered by Hon'ble High Court in case titled as Dharamvir Singh versus State of Haryana and others decided on 30.11.2018 wherein it was held that employees of aided/unaided institutions are entitled for the leave encashment and interpretation given by the Division Bench is clear that payment of leave encashment is not at the discretion of the management and the direction was given to respondent No.4-school to calculate the amount in respect of the leave encashment for which the petitioner is entitled for. No case law was relied upon by learned counsel for respondent-school to rebut the case law referred to by learned counsel for appellant.

Apparently, the benefit of leave encashment has been given in terms of law laid down by this Court, and no exception can be taken to it. The judgment passed by the Tribunal is well-reasoned, and suffers from no legal infirmity.

4. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of any order of rejecti