IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 16691 of 2008 Decided on : 05.04.2011 T.C.Bhardwaj …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has claimed retirement gratuity from the respondents. The petitioner has also quantified the amount of retirement gratuity which according to him is ` 1,28,445/-. The petitioner has claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount payable to him on account of retirement gratuity but has not been paid. 2. The further relevant facts are that the petitioner served Goswamy Ganesh Dutt Sanatan Dharam College, Baijnath in the capacity of Lecturer in Sanskrit from 16.7.1966 to 30.6.1996 when he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The respondent No.2 College was in receipt of grant-in-aid to the extent of 95% from respondent No.1 for salary and expenditure of the staff 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 at the relevant time. It has been stated that lateron respondent No.2- College has been taken over alongwith the staff by respondent No.1. 3. The respondent No.1 contested the petition by filing short reply and has stated that respondent No.2 was a privately managed, controlled and run by the management of the College. The Government of Himachal Pradesh had been aiding and funding the respondent No.2-College to the extent of 95% by way of grant- in-aid. The Government of Himachal Pradesh has not introduced any scheme which provide pension-cum-gratuity to the employees of the Government aided/funded Non-Govt. Colleges in the State. The Himachal Pradesh University Ordinance Chapter XXXVIII, paragraph 38.5 B(d) Appendix-A, provides that the teachers of Non-Govt. Colleges (affiliated) are entitled to the gratuity as per provisions provided in the Ordinances. 4. The respondent No.2 has also filed reply and has stated that the retirement gratuity in the case of the petitioner comes to ` 74,250/- out of which 95% is to be paid by the Government i.e. ` 70,250/- and 5% by the respondent No.2-College which comes to ` 3,715/-. The respondent No.2 was government aided college and had received 95% aid. The State of Himachal Pradesh had earlier also paid retirement gratuity to some Peons of the College. The respondent No.2 has calculated the retirement gratuity of petitioner and had sent a letter to the Director of Education. 5. The respondent No.4 has also filed reply and has taken the stand that as per Appendix ‘A’ to Chapter XXXVIII-Paragraph 38.5 B(d) 12-A, (Gratuity) of the First Ordinances of H.P. University 3 (as amended), the governing body of the College is liable to take care of the relief sought by the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that similar point was involved in CWP No. 60 of 2006 decided by a co-ordinate Bench on 20.6.2008 wherein it has been held as follows:- “Now, the question which arises for consideration is: by whom the gratuity in the present case is to be paid?. The petitioner, as already noticed hereinabove, was to superannuate on 31.3.2005. The amount of gratuity is to be calculated from 12.8.1971 to 31.3.2005. The management of the college was dependent to the extent of 95% aid to be released under the rules framed by the State. The management had to defray the expenses to the extent of 5% only. The management as per rule 12-A, as noticed above, was bound to pay the gratuity to the petitioner and the State had to bear this expenditure to the extent of 95%. Consequently, it is held that the State Government will pay 95% amount of the gratuity to the petitioner and the remaining 5% has to be paid by respondent No.7-Society.” 7. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment dated 20.6.2008 has been upheld by the Division Bench in LPA No. 23 of 2009 on 7.7.2010. The relevant part of the judgment dated 7.7.2010 is as follows:- “The learned Single Judge in the judgment under appeals, have only directed the implementation of the rules, as extracted and explained above. The learned Single Judge has also made it clear that the teachers in the colleges covered by the scheme should be given a similar treatment as given to those in Government Colleges in the matter of fixation and grades. We also 4 find that learned Single Judge has referred to couple of instances where the government has in fact followed the rules in its true spirit in fixing the scales and granting the increments as per the UGC Scheme. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the Letters Patent Appeals. They are accordingly dismissed. Since the reliefs claimed in the writ petitions are in terms of reliefs granted by the learned Single Judge and explained above, those writ petitions are allowed with direction to the respondents to release the grant-in-aid in terms of Himachal Pradesh Non-Government Affiliated Colleges Grant-in-Aid Rules, 1994, if not released, within a period of three months from today and the fixation of pay and grant of grades shall also be approved, as above, in the meanwhile.” 8. The learned Additional Advocate General has not refuted that the case of the petitioner for gratuity is not covered by the judgment dated 20.6.2008 and Division Bench judgment dated 7.7.2010. The respondent No.2 –College at the relevant time was aided by the Government to the extent of 95% and thereafter College has been taken over by the Government alongwith staff. The case of the petitioner for relief of gratuity is covered by the aforesaid two judgments, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled gratuity in terms of the directions given in judgment dated 20.6.2008 CWP No. 60 of 2006 and judgment dated 7.7.2010 in LPA No. 23 of 2009. The petition is accordingly allowed. The respondent No.1 is directed to pay the due amount of gratuity to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of supply of copy of this judgment by the petitioner to the competent authority. 5 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner may also be allowed the relief of leave encashment which has been allowed in the aforesaid judgments in favour of the petitioner in those cases. The petitioner has not raised claim of leave encashment in the present petition. It is for the respondent No.1 to consider the case of the petitioner for leave encashment in accordance with law in case the petitioner approaches respondent No.1 for that purpose. The petition stands disposed of. ( Kuldip Singh ), April 5, 2011. Judge. (GR)