IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5142 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision:19.09.2011 Mohinder Singh Dhaliwal (since deceased, through his LRs), Lecturer in Economics, Khalsa College, Amritsar. ...Petitioner versus Director Public Instructions, Punjab (Colleges), Chandigarh, and another. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG, Punjab. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner's claim is to the increments earned during the period of leave when it had been sanctioned without pay on the basis of clause 84 in the University calendar. The petitioner had been a Lecturer in Economics and on securing an appointment as Principal in Guru Nanak College at Moga, he had applied for leave and the same was accorded to him without pay. The Government had also been informed as 95% of the funding had been done by the State and in the letter of the Under Secretary to the Principal of the Khalsa College where the petitioner was previously working, it was stated that, his lien in the job would be maintained in the Khalsa College. On termination of his leave when he rejoined, he had been granted his increment, but he could not secure the same since the Civil Writ Petition No.5142 of 1989 (O&M) - 2 - decision had been countermanded. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State would contend that the petitioner was going to yet another College as a Principal, availing leave from Khalsa College, not for academic work/teaching/research work which were the governing consideration for the entitlement of the benefit of actual increment under clause 84. I cannot accept this argument since a leave obtained on a clear appraisal that he was assuming a post of a Principal of another college at Moga, cannot be understood as non-academic work or that it involved a non-teaching work. When the Government had even allowed for retention of the lien, there was no way that the Government would state that the leave was not of the kind that could entitle him to earn the increment during the said period. 3. The mandate shall, therefore, be that the petitioner is entitled to the increments for the period 05.09.1983 to15.09.1986 when he had been on leave without salary. The petitioner has died and the legal representatives have been added. The amount shall be paid with interest at 6% per annum within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 4. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 19.09.2011 sanjeev