- (1.) These Special Leave Petitions are directed against the common orders dated 09.06.2008 and 20.06.2008 of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, in Writ Petition No.2881 of 2007 and Writ Petition No.1410 of 2008. The questions raised in these Special Leave Petitions are whether the Lecturers/Demonstrators working in the Moolji Jeitha College established by the Khandesh College Education Society, Jalgaon, are entitled for earned leave and for encashment of unutilized earned leave on their retirement.
(2.) The relevant facts very briefly are that respondent nos.1 to 14 in both the Special Leave Petitions have worked as Lecturers/Demonstrators in the Moolji Jeitha College (for short 'the College') which is a private College established by the Khandesh College Education Society, Jalgaon, and has been receiving aid from the State of Maharashtra. After their retirement, respondent nos.1 to 14 were not granted encashment of their unutilized leave despite demands being made on the Principal of the College. Respondent nos.1 to 14 then made a representation to the Grievances Committee of the North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon (for short 'the University') to which the College is affiliated, contending that under Statutes 424(3) and 424 (C) of the University of Pune, they were entitled for encashment of earned leave after retirement, but have not been paid the same by the College. When the Grievances Committee did not take any action on the representation, respondent nos.1 to 14 filed Writ Petition No.2671 of 2006 in the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, and by order dated 12.04.2006 the High Court directed the Grievances Committee of the University to dispose of the representation for encashment of unutilized earned leave within three months. Pursuant to this direction of the High Court, the Grievances Committee of the University decided on 10.10.2006 that the Statutes of the University of Pune continued to be applicable to the University by virtue of the provisions of Section 115(xii) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act') and therefore respondent nos.1 to 14 were entitled to encashment of their earned leave to their credit under Statute 424(C) read with Statute 424(3) of the University of Pune. The decision of the Grievances Committee was communicated to the college by letter dated 18.10.2006 of the University.
(3.) The Khandesh College Education Society thereafter filed Writ Petition No.2881 of 2007 challenging the decision of the Grievances Committee of the University as well as the constitutional validity of Statutes 424(3) and 424(C) of the University of Pune. Respondent nos.1 to 14 also filed Writ Petition No.1410 of 2008 seeking a direction to the University to direct the Khandesh College Education Society as well as the Principal of the College to pay their unutilized earned leave forthwith along with interest and cost. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the High Court held in the impugned common order dated 09.06.2008 that the constitutional validity of Statutes 424(3) and 424(C) of the University of Pune cannot be challenged merely on the ground that such provisions did not exist in the statutes of other Universities and that these provisions being beneficial provisions, cannot be held to be ultra vires the Constitution. The High Court further held that respondent nos.1 to 14, admittedly, were employed in the College in various capacities and were entitled to leave in accordance with their service conditions and the Bombay High Court has already held in the case of V.S. Agarkar vs. The chairman, Grievance Cell Committee, Pune University (W.P. No.4936 of 2006 decided on 22.01.2007) that a teacher employed in an Institution affiliated to the University of Pune on retirement is entitled for encashment of unutilized leave on superannuation under Statute 424(C) of the University of Pune. The High Court, however, clarified that the College after discharging its liability of payment of leave encashment would be entitled to claim reimbursement by way of grant from the State of Maharashtra. By the impugned common order dated 20.06.2008, the High Court corrected the earlier order dated 09.06.2008 by clarifying that the liability of the State Government to reimburse the college would be subject to the claim of the College being admissible under law.;