B.K. Sachdeva And ORS v. State Of Punjab And ORS

C. W. P. No. 788 of 2015 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : C. W. P. No. 788 of 2015 Date of Decision : January 28, 2015 B. K. Sachdeva and others ....

Petitioners Vs.

State of Punjab and others ....

Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL.

* * * To be referred to Reporters or not ?

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? * * * Present :

Mr. R. K. Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners.

* * * DEEPAK SIBAL , J.

:

Through the present writ petition, the petitioners, who retired as Lecturers from the respondent-College, which was affiliated to the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as - the University), challenge Clause 22 (3) of the Guru Nanak Dev University Calendar, Vol. IV, 2007 to the extent of fixing cut-off date as 01.01.2012 with regard to encashment of earned leave and further pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant leave encashment of earned leave to the petitioners.

C. W. P. No. 788 of 2015 2 The particulars with regard to each of the petitioners, regarding the subjects taught by them, date of joining, date of retirement, basic pay at the time of retirement and gross pay at the time of retirement are given below in a tabulated form :- DOABA COLLEGE, JALANDHAR Sr.

No.

Name Department D. O. J.

D. O. R.

Basic Pay Gross Pay B. K. Sachdeva Commerce 17.07.1971 29.02.2008 18300/- 45818/- Anil Malhotra Economics 24.07.1970 31.05.2007 18300/- 42524/- R. N. Ghai Economics 13.07.1971 30.08.2008 18300/- 45818/- R. C. Joshi Mathematics 01.08.1968 31.12.2006 18300/- 41151/- D. B. Rai Punjabi 06.08.1975 31.08.2009 18300/- 52131/- V. K. Jain Commerce 27.07.1971 31.07.2007 18300/- 42524/- Jatinder Singh Bedi Pol. Science 06.08.1974 31.08.2006 18300/- 41151/- S. N. Kanwar Economics 27.07.1974 30.06.2009 18300/- 49386/- Kiran Prabhakar Psychology 07.07.1976 31.03.2010 ...........

..........

From the above, it is clear that all the petitioners have retired prior to 01.04.2010.

Vide decision dated 25.02.2014, the Syndicate of the University converted the Privilege Leave into Earned Leave, which could be encashed, but made it applicable only to Principals, Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors who had retired on superannuation/ prematurely on or after 01.01.2012. Since the petitioners had retired prior to the above mentioned cut off date and were not covered under the above benefit, they, through the present petition, challenge the fixation of the date of applicability of the benefit. The impugned Clause 22 (3) of the Guru Nanak Dev University Calendar, Vol. IV, 2007 is reproduced below for

C. W. P. No. 788 of 2015 3 ready reference :- "22 (3) Encashment of earned leave :

All the Principals/Professors/Associate Professors/Assistant Professors of the private colleges affiliated to Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar shall be allowed encashment of unutilized earned leave to a maximum number of days as decided by the Punjab Government from time to time.

Cash payment shall include pay and allowances as per Punjab Government CSR.

This provision shall be applicable to all the Principals/Professors/Associate Professors/ Assistant Professors who retire on superannuation/pre-mature on or after 1 January, 2012, Unutilized privilege leave to the credit of the Principals/Professors/ Associate Professors/Assistant Professors shall henceforth be treated as earned leave."

A perusal of the record shows that the above benefit was not available to any of the employees of the University prior to the decision dated 25.02.2014. Thus, a new benefit, for the first time, was introduced by

C. W. P. No. 788 of 2015 4 the University through the above Clause impugned by the petitioners. No right of the petitioners, which they were enjoying earlier, has been taken away. Merely a benefit, for the first time, has been introduced by the University and we see no reason in law for the same to be introduced from a retrospective effect so as to cover even the employees like the petitioners, who have retired about five years ago. We find no illegality in the fixation of the date from which the above benefit has been given. Only because that date does not cover the dates of retirement of the petitioners cannot per se make the fixation of the date in the impugned Clause as illegal.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that other Universities were granting the above benefit from the year 1990, and therefore, the action of the University was discriminatory. We are not impressed by such a submission made on behalf of the petitioners. Each of the Universities are autonomous bodies and are entitled to take their own independent decisions. Merely because some other University is granting the benefit from an earlier date, would not render the fixation of the date in the case in hand to be discriminatory.

Finding no illegality in the action impugned by the petitioners, the writ petition filed by them is ordered to be dismissed in limine. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ( DEEPAK SIBAL ) JUDGE JUDGE January 28, 2015 monika