-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3730 OF 2008 Mrs. Sucheta S. Hardikar ... Petitioner vs. The Chairman, Grievance Cell Committee and others ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5175 OF 2008 Ms. (Dr.) Sudha G. Purohit ... Petitioner vs. The Chairman, Grievance Cell Committee and others ... Respondents In both petitions: Mr. K.J. Kandpile for the petitioner. Mr. A.H. Palekar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent No. 5. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & ANOOP V. MOHTA , JJ. DATE: APRIL 06 , 2009 P.C. In the above matters, this Court on 14th October, 2008, passed the following order. “ Not on board, Mentioned. 1. Issue notice to the respondents returnable after 8 weeks. Petitioner to serve the respondents by registered post A.D. in addition to usual mode of service. Handmust allowed. -2- 2. Respondents are put to notice that this Court will be disposing of the petition finally at the time of admission itself. Respondents, therefore, to file their affidavit in reply if any, two weeks prior to the returnable date and serve a copy thereof on the petitioner.” 2. Since the issue involved in these petitions are common, these petitions are disposed of by this common order. 3. Each of the petitioners was working as Lecturers in the Statistics/Botany departments of respondent No.4 College. The grievance raised by the petitioners in each of these petitions is that during their entire career, they had not utilized any earned leave and accordingly they are entitled to the benefit of encashment of earned leave standing to their credit. It is not in dispute that both the petitioners have in their credit earned leave of 180 days. In spite of representations being made by the petitioners from time to time, the respondents have not taken any steps to make the necessary payment, though the petitioners were retired long back. 4. In this connection, the petitioners have relied upon decisions of the Division Bench of this Court wherein this Court has directed the institutions to pay to the petitioners therein the amount payable to them on account of -3- encashment of earned leave standing to their credit on the date of their superannuation. The said judgments are at Exhibits-D to J to these petitions. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the present cases are also of a similar nature. Of course, on behalf of the State Government, an affidavit-in-reply has been filed taking the stand that as per Rule 50 of Maharashtra Civil Services Rules, 1981, earned leave is admissible only to those who do not get the benefit of long term vacation and as per Rule 52 of the Maharashtra Civil Service Rule, earned leave is not admissible to those who avail long term vacation. In our view, once this point has already been covered by the decisions of this Court and since it is not in dispute that the present petitions are of a similar nature, there is no reason for us to take a different view than the one taken by the decisions referred to earlier. 6. No affidavit in reply has been filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has invited our attention to Statute 424 ( C) of the Pune University Statute, which reads thus: “”The teacher shall be entitled to encash earned leave in balance to his credit on the date of his superannuation subject to a maximum of 180 days. In case the teacher is required to serve till the end of academic session beyond the date of his superannuation, he shall be -4- entitled to encash the balance of earned leave to his credit on the date of his actual retirement from service.” We have gone through the said provision. In our opinion, both the petitioners are entitled to encash the balance earned leave to their credit on the date of their superannuation. Since identical petitions are dealt with by this Court and reliefs have been given to the petitioners therein, in our opinion, the petitioners in these cases are also entitled to the identical relief. 6. Considering the said aspect, both these petitions are allowed. The Respondent Nos. 3 and 4- management are directed to calculate and pay the amount to the petitioners on account of encashment of earned leave standing to their credit within a period of two months from today. We make it clear that if respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are entitled to claim reimbursement from the State Government so far as the amount in question is concerned , it will be open to them to make appropriate representation and the State Government shall consider the same in accordance with the Rules. On this aspect, we are are expression any opinion in any manner. 7. Both these writ petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. -5- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.