Kambli 1 wp6038.10 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6038 OF 2010 ... Pune Zilla Shikshan Mandal and another ...Petitioners v/s. Shri Vishnu Shankar Markale and others ...Respondents ... Mr.A.M.Joshi for the Petitioners. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, Addl.GP for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Mr.Girish Kulkarni for Respondent No.4 ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATED: 20TH OCTOBER,2010 P.C.: 1. Most of the contentions raised in this petition are already covered by our order passed in Writ Petition No.8451 of 2010. Two additional contentions were raised Kambli 2 wp6038.10 in this petition, one that Maharashtra Universities Act was passed by the Legislature of the State of Maharashtra in 1994. One of the object of bringing the Maharashtra Universities Act was to provide for a unified pattern for the constitution and administration of non-agricultural and non-technological universities in the State of Maharashtra. According to the learned Counsel, therefore, by coming into force of Maharashtra Universities Act, the Statute 424(C) will cease to operate, because Section 115 of the Maharashtra Universities Act says that anything contrary to the provisions of Maharashtra Universities Act will stand repealed. 2. In our opinion, the submission is not well founded. There is no provision in the Maharashtra Universities Act which will show Kambli 3 wp6038.10 that the provision for encashment of earned leave is not be continued. 3. It was next submitted that because the teachers did not apply for encashment of earned leave on the date of their retirement, the Grievance Committee could not have been passed a Resolution for payment of earned leave. For that purpose reliance is placed on two judgments of the Supreme Court, the judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan and anr. v/s. Senior Higher Secondary School, (2005) 10 SCC 346 to contend that earned leave is part of salary and the judgment in the case of Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil v/s. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & ors., 2009 (6) Bom.C.R. 664 to contend that when there is no period of limitation is provided, three years is maximum period for limitation. Kambli 4 wp6038.10 4. What is to be seen here is that as we have observed in our order in above referred Writ Petition, the Grievance Committee is constituted to look into grievances of teachers of affiliated college. What is further to be seen here is, perusal of the provisions of Section 81 of the Maharashtra Universities Act shows that before affiliation is given to a college by the University, the college has to undertake to observe the provisions of the Act, Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations. Thus, the affiliated college is duty bound because of the statutory undertaking to abide by the provisions of the Statute. What is being done by the Grievance Committee is enforcement of the undertaking given by the Petitioners. Therefore, now the Petitioner-Management cannot raise any defence about the limitation to avoid making of payment, which is Kambli 5 wp6038.10 legitimately due to the teachers. We do not find any substance in the petition. Petition is, therefore, rejected. (D.K.Deshmukh,J.) (N.D.Deshpande, J.)