1 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6797 OF 2008 Mrs. Shubhada V. Kelkar .. Petitioner Versus 1. Pune University Through its Vice chancellor Pune. 2. Deccan Education Society Fergusson College, Pune, 411 004 3. The Principal Fergusson College, Pune, 411 004 4. The Chairman Grievance Cell Committee, Pune University, Pune 5. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Shri R. M. haridas with Shri P. N. Joshi, for the Petitioner Shri N. P. Malvankar, AGP for Respondent State – Shri A. V. Borwankar for Respondents 2 and 3 CORAM: J. N. PATEL, & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED: 22nd June, 2009 J U D G E M E N T (Per Mridula Bhatkar, J.) 1. Heard. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. 2 3. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Respondents to get the benefit of encashment of earned leave standing to her credit. 4. Petitioner was working as a Lecturer with Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and retired by superannuation on 31.10.2002. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are affiliated to the Repsondent NO.1 Pune University. It is contended that the petitioner did not utilise the earned leave and 180 days earned leave is now standing to her credit. Pune University Statute - 424(3)(B) confirms that the vacation teacher is entitled to earned leave subject to accumulation, maximum upto 180 days and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to claim encashment of earned leave under the provisions of Statue- 424 (C) of the Pune University, framed under Section 42 and Section 73 of the University Act, 1974. 5. It is submitted that despite several representations made by the petitioner, no positive response was given by the respondents and by letter dated 16.11.2004 (Exh.B), Respondent No.3, has communicated refusal in writing to the petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the complaint of the petitioner was placed before Respondent No.4- the Grievance Committee Cell of the Pune university. The Grievance 3 Committee, after hearing both the parties, held that the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought by her. Respondent No.4, by its order dated 7.9.2007 (Exh.B) directed Respondent No.3 to encash the leave and pay all the benefits. Despite of the said order of the Grievance Committee, the petitioner is not paid her dues. Hence she has filed this petition. 6. Respondents 2 to 4, though served, neither appeared, nor filed their affidavits. The State- Respondent No.5 has filed its affidavit in reply opposing the petition. It is contended in the affidavit that as per Rules 50 and 52 of the Maharashtra Civil Service Rules-1981, earned leave is not admissible to those who avail long term vacation and the petitioner, being Lecturer had availed of long term vacation and so the claim of the petitioner is barred and she is not entitled to get the benefit of encashment of earned leave. It is further submitted on behalf of the State that the provisions of earned leave under Section 424 (C) of the University Statute cannot be made applicable to the petitioner-lecturer and it is necessary for the respondents-university/college to carry out necessary correction as per order dated 7.10.2008 issued by the State. 7. In the present petition, the Grievance Committee Cell had decided the matter on merit and after giving audience to both 4 the parties, held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the encashment of eared leave upto 180 days. The Grievance Committee Cell has considered the University Statue No. 424 (C) which states about the encashment of un-utilised earned leave on superannuation subject to maximum 180 days. 8. The issue of encashment of earned leave to the lecturer or teachers from the college and university was dealt with in many writ petitions by the Division Benches of this Court. By various orders i.e. order dated 22nd January, 2007 in Writ Petition No. 4936 of 2007, order dated 13th April, 2007 in Writ Petition No. 2310 of 2007, and by order dated 7th April, 2008 in Writ Petition No. 8676 of 2006 alongwith a group of writ petitions, this Court decided and disposed of the petitions by taking consistent view holding the petitioners entitled to the encashment of earned leave upto 180 days. In the order dated 7th April, 2008, the Division Bench of this Court has clarified that educational institutions, after discharging their liability of payment towards leave encashment, are entitled to claim reimbursement by way of grant from the State. We concur with the view on the point of payment and of reimbursement as expressed by the Division Bench in its order dated 7th April, 2008. 9. In the above premises, we allow this petition with 5 direction to Respondents 2 and 3 to pay the petitioner, the amount payable to her on account of encashment of Earned leave of 180 days standing to her credit on the date of his superannuation i.e. 31.10.2002. 10. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (J. N. PATEL, J.) jpc/-