- (1.) This special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 25 August 2014. Prior to the enactment of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 (UP Act No.34 of 1972)(Act) and the constitution of the Board of Basic Education, all basic institutions from class I to V and class VI to VIII in the State were under the control of the local bodies. After the constitution of the Board of Basic Education upon the enactment of U.P. Act No. 34 of 1972, all such institutions and their employees were transferred to the Board under the provisions of Section 9. Since the date of transfer, the service conditions of the teaching and other employees of basic institutions are governed by the statutory Rules applicable to the employees of the Board.
(2.) The respondent was initially appointed on 13 July 1965 in the city area of Mirzapur and his services were transferred to the Basic Shiksha Parishad on 30 July 1981. He attained the age of superannuation on 30 June 2007 after completing service of 41 years 11 months and 17 days. In his writ petition, the respondent sought to claim the benefit of the facility of leave encashment on the date of his superannuation. This claim of the respondent was founded on a judgment of the Public Service Tribunal dated 15 May 1999 in a case titled as Rajeshwar Prasad Singhal vs. Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad Claim Petition No.381 of 1998. The case before the Public Service Tribunal also dealt with the claim of an employee who was earlier an employee with a local body and had been transferred to and absorbed in the Basic Shiksha Parishad on 1 August 1972. The Tribunal upheld the claim of leave encashment by its judgment. The judgment of the Tribunal was questioned in a special appeal before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench by its judgment dated 22 July 2004 dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the Basic Shiksha Parishad had failed to establish Rules disentitling the employees of the Parishad to leave encashment. However, the Court also observed that the judgment should not be interpreted to mean a direction that in all such cases the employees would be entitled to leave encashment in the absence of Rules. The judgment of the Division Bench was challenged before the Supreme Court. However, the Civil Appeal Civil Appeal No.538 of 2007 was dismissed in default on 10 March 2011.
(3.) Now, it is in this background that the issue which falls for determination in the special appeal needs to be taken up.;