IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.9955 of 1998 Between: P.Venkataramanaiah (died), reptd., by LRs - P.V.Subaramasarma and P.Srilakshmi, both r/o.D.No.20-1-426, Maruthi Nagar, Korlagunta, Tirupati, Chittoor District. … Petitioners And Veda & Sanskrit College, Mulapet, Nellore, Reptd., by its Secretary & Correspondent, Nellore and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P.Venkata Rama Sarma for Sri P.B.Vijaya Kumar. Counsel for the respondents: None. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to allow encashment of earned leave accrued to the deceased-petitioner No.1 on the date of his retirement from service in respondent No.1- college. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, petitioner No.1 died and his legal representatives i.e., petitioners 2 and 3, were brought on record. Heard Sri P.Venkata Rama Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners. There is no representation for the respondents. Petitioner No.1 was employed as Clerk in respondent No.1-College having been appointed on 3- 9-1961. He retired from service on 31-7-1994. He claimed that he had 147 days of Earned Leave accrued to his credit at the time of retirement. By representation dated 26-9-1994 he claimed to have requested respondent No.1, with copy of the same submitted to respondent No.2, to allow him to encash/surrender the said earned leave. As no action thereon has been taken, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. Along with the Writ Petition, the petitioners filed various Government Orders issued from time to time. By G.O.Ms.No.208, Finance & Planning (FW FR.I) Department, dated 16-3-1975, the Government, inter alia, provided that the Government Servants shall be allowed to encash earned leave/privilege leave at their credit on the date of superannuation subject to a maximum of 120 days by the authority competent to sanction pension. By G.O.Ms.No.415, Finance & Planning (Fin.Wing FR-I) Department, dated 30- 11-1977, the period of 120 days was enhanced to 180 days for the purpose of encashment of earned leave. The petitioners placed reliance on proceedings dated 29-11-1983 of the Director of Higher Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, wherein he directed that G.O.Ms.No.232, Education Department, dated 17-8- 1983, which governed the revised surrender leave of the Government Servants, shall be extended to the teaching and non-teaching staff of aided colleges. The petitioners also relied on proceedings dated 25-6- 1985 of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it is provided that all the benefits/concessions extended to the teaching and non-teaching staff of aided colleges, from time to time, shall also apply mutatis mutandis to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Aided Oriental Colleges and Colleges of Education. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and another Vs. Senior Higher Secondary School, Lachhmangarh and others – (2005) 10 SCC 346 – wherein the Supreme Court, having considered the definitions of ‘salary’ and scales of “pay and allowances of employees” in Sections 2(r) and 29 respectively of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989, held that leave encashment is part of ‘salary’ as defined in Section 2(r) and covered in the wider expression “scales of pay and allowances” in Section 29. The Supreme Court further held that the teachers working in aided educational institutions are entitled to parity in the mater of leave encashment with teachers in the Government Educational Institutions. On an analysis of the material and the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, I am of the view that there is no justification for the respondents to deny petitioner No.1 the facility of leave encashment as, undisputedly, petitioner No.1 was holding an aided post in respondent No.1-College. None of the respondents have filed any counter- affidavit to persuade this Court to deny the said relief to petitioner No.1. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay the amount equal to surrender of earned leave to the legal representatives of petitioner No.1 i.e., petitioners 2 and 3, in accordance with the Rules applicable to the non-teaching staff working in the Government Educational Institutions as on the date of retirement of petitioner No.1, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:02-12-2008 MNR