- (1.) These Appeals are preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 497 of 2014. Reported in 2014(4) JLJR 536 alongwith analogous cases dated 7th March, 201.4 and also against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2553 of 2014 with W.P.(S) No. 2555 of 2014, which was disposed of on 30th June, 2014 whereby, the petitions preferred by the present respondents was allowed and the respondents were granted leave encashment in the government aided minority high school. They are serving in the different middle schools of Jharkhand. As these respondents were given leave encashment allowances on the basis of several rules and regulations including on the basis of Circular bearing No. 1775 dated 30th August, 1980 and Circular bearing No. 237 dated 20th February, 1990. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances, it appears that nothing new has been argued out by the counsel for the appellant(s). Very old tunes are being repeated by these appellants. Same is the orchestra and the same are the tunes which has already been sung before the other Division Bench in CWJC No. 2162 of 1999(R) decided vide order dated 20th August, 2002. Against this judgment Letters Patent Appeal bearing No. 295 of 2004 was preferred by the State of Jharkhand which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 6th January, 2006, against which S.L.P. was preferred under Article 136 of the Constitution of India bearing CC No. 7881/2006 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed vide order dated 30th October, 2006. This is one round of litigation, but, this was not enough for the State of Jharkhand. Similar error has been committed by the State of Jharkhand i.e. again the leave encashment was not paid to the similarly situated petitioners. This has given birth of another round of litigation.
(2.) Thus, one round litigation has not awakened the senses of the Government. There is a National Litigation Policy with certain restrictions adopted by the State also. The State Litigation Policy also shows that if similarly situated matters are decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court then it must be followed by the State so as to avoid multifarious litigations, but, as usual similar error has been again committed by the State i.e. non-payment of the leave encashment amount to the retired teachers of government aided minority school which is in question and therefore, the said teachers preferred writ petitions bearing W.P.(S) No. 497 of 2014 Reported in 2014(4) JLJR 536 with other cases which were allowed by this Court vide order dated 7th March, 2014 in terms of the Division Bench decision rendered in W.P.(S) No. 506 of 2013 Reported in : 2014(1) JLJR 465 with W.P.(S) No. 509 of 2013 Reported in : 2014(1) JLJR 465 with W.P.(S) No. 512 of 2013 Reported in : 2014(1) JLJR 465, all decided vide order dated 3rd January, 2014.
(3.) The aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 3rd January, 2014 was challenged by the State of Jharkhand before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition bearing C.C. Nos. 20606-20607/2014 which was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 15th December, 2014.;