Letters Patent Appeal No.685 OF 2000 ******* Against the Order dated 07th April, 2000 passed in CWJC no. 11407 of f1996. ******* Dr.MISHRI LAL JHA @ Dr.M.L.JHA-----Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS---------Respondents ******* For the Appellant : Ms. Namrata Mishra For the State : M/s Shashi Bhushan Kumar, SC 16 With J.K. Roy, JC. ******* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH Barin Ghosh & J.N. Singh, JJ. In the writ petition filed by the appellant he challenged a decision of the Government contained in an order dated 15th October, 1996 by which the Government refused to pay to the appellant pension, gratuity and leave encashment. The fact remains that the appellant was an employee of a private College which was taken over by the State of Bihar in 2 terms of a statutory mandate. In as much as the appellant did not serve under the Government for a period of ten years and in as much as the service conditions of the appellant, while he was an employee of the private Institution, did not provide for grant of pension, by the impugned judgment and order a learned single Judge, noting the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vrs. Dev Dutt Kaushal & Ors.; 1995 Supp.(4) SCC 748, refused to allow the prayer of the appellant for grant of pension. While doing so the learned Judge also felt that the service conditions of the appellant, while he was an employee of the private Institution, did not authorize grant of leave encashment. We have looked into the rules and in particular the relevant Statutes of Lalit Narayan Mishra Institute of Economic Development & Social Change and found therefrom 3 that Rule 18(b) authorized employees, as that of the appellant, to have earned leave at the rate of 1/12th of the period spent on duty subject to a maximum accumulation of 180 days. There is no dispute that after the appellant became an employee of the Government by reason of take over of the said private Institution by the Government, as a Government employee, the appellant also became entitled to encashment of earned leave. By the judgment and order under appeal, the learned single Judge allowed the prayer of the appellant for grant of gratuity on the ground that the service conditions of the appellant, while he was an employee of the private Institution, permitted payment of gratuity. The learned Judge, according to us, rightly, while allowing the claim for gratuity, directed counting of the period for calculation of gratuity from the date the appellant joined the private 4 Institution until his superannuation upon the taking over of the Institution by the Government. Similar analogy also applies in relation to the claim of the appellant for earned leave. 2. In the present appeal the appellant is seeking a direction for payment of earned leave and interest thereupon as well as interest on gratuity which was not paid to the appellant without any just reason. 3. The Government itself has decided that in the event retiral dues to which an employee is entitled to is not paid on time the same shall carry interest at the rate of 5% per annum. 4. In those circumstances, we allow the appeal and direct the State Government to 5 calculate the quantum of earned leave accumulated in favour of the appellant as on the date of his superannuation and while doing so to take into account the period spent on duty by the appellant from the date he joined the private Institution until his retirement therefrom upon take over thereof by the government in terms of the provisions contained in the aforementioned Statute together with interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of retirement of the appellant until payment. 5. We also allow the claim of the appellant for payment of interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the amount of gratuity from the date of retirement of the appellant until the date of the impugned order i.e. 07th April, 2000. 6 6. Let the aforementioned payments be made available to the appellant as quickly as possible but not later than three months from the date of service of a copy of this judgment and order upon the respondent no.2. This disposes of the appeal. (Barin Ghosh,J.) (J.N. Singh, J.) Patna High Court, The 25th June, 2008. AAhmad/(NAFR).