CW 9349/06 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9349/06 Principal, Dayanand College & Ors. Versus Non-Govt. Educational Institutions Tribunal & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 10/02/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mrs. Naina Saraf, for petitioners Mr. M.L. Jain, for respondents Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, Addl. Govt. Counsel *** Instant petition has been filed by the institution assailing order of Educational Tribunal dt.28th June, 2006 whereby the respondents were directed to be paid amount of leave encashment along with interest @9%. Counsel for petitioner submits that so far as entitlement with regard to payment of leave encashment is concerned, it has been finally settled upto the apex court that employee on retirement is entitled to leave encashment under the Rules, 1993 and that has been considered to be a part of salary. However, only contention is that once the institution is 90% aided and payment of encashment of leave is a part of salary. Respondent-State is under obligation to pay the institution in proportion to its aid and in support of submission placed reliance on the judgment of this court in CW No.9114/06 along CW 9349/06 [2] with three other writ petitions which were decided by common order dt.13th January, 2009. Counsel further submits that so far as awarding of interest @9% is concerned, it is not in consonance with the Scheme of Rules, 1993 and learned Tribunal in other cases have not awarded interest and atleast to this extent, order may be set aside. Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that once entitlement has not been disputed by the petitioner, there was no justification available, to still withhold terminal benefits and the fact remains that Teacher stood retired from service on 14th June, 2000 and despite his right became due, the respondents failed to discharge its obligation. In such circumstances, the interest has rightly been awarded which is not required to be interfered with in the facts of instant case. Counsel for State submits that petitioner failed to make payment of leave encashment in terms of order impugned dt.28th June, 2006. In absence whereof, grant cannot be claimed by the petitioner and apart from it, if it is an approved expenditure, institution may apply for grant in accordance with law if admissible under law. CW 9349/06 [3] This court had an occasion to examine the controversy in CW No.9114/06 decided on 13/1/09 raised in the instant petition and finally observed that payment of leave encashment is a part of salary and Government is also under an obligation to pay its share in proportion of aid extended to the institution. This was also considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in CW No.2473/06, Mahila Mandal Vs. State of Rajasthan, decided on 25th October, 2007. Thus, leave encashment being a part of salary and petitioner institution being 90% aided, the State Government cannot absolve from its liability in parting with of its share from grant-in-aid duly sanctioned to the petitioner-institution. So far as submission made by the counsel for petitioner in respect of interest awarded to the employees is concerned, suffice it to say that a person retired on 14th June, 2000, petitioner was under an obligation to pay on retirement but still it has not been paid despite the order of the Tribunal. This court does not find any infirmity in awarding interest to the employee. Consequently, writ petition is partly allowed while upholding the impugned order dt.28th June, CW 9349/06 [4] 2006 of the Educational Tribunal passed in Appeal No.71/05. Petitioner-institution is directed to comply with the order of Tribunal within three months and at the same time, the State Government is also directed to give its contribution/share of 90% grant-in-aid in favour of the petitioner- institution towards encashment of leave. No costs. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA9349CW06 10-2.doc