advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Thursday, January 31, 2013

whether respondent Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to reimbursement of the amount paid to the teachers by way of leave encashment under the statutes framed by the Pune University. - In fact, the Grievance Committee had given a report in favour of the petitioner which was dealt by the Grievance Committee after petition came to be filed.= institution will be entitled to claim reimbursement by way of grant from the respondent - State. Only correction requires to be done is that the liability of the State would be subject to claim of the respondent being admissible under law. Therefore, we add a sentence at the conclusion of Paragraph No. 9 if admissible under law. The State Government also took cognizance of the orders passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 2671/2006 and Contempt Petition No. 191/2006 and directed that the University Statutes should be amended with retrospective effect and till then, the concerned University should bear expenses incurred in payment of leave encashment. This was reiterated vide letter dated 20.10.2008 sent by the Director of Education (Higher Education), Maharashtra to all the universities.= the provisions contained in the 1981 Rules are not applicable to the university teachers and the teachers of the affiliated colleges because they are not Government servants but this cannot lead to an inference that the affiliated colleges are entitled to reimbursement of the amount paid to the teachers in lieu of earned leave.- till the Statutes, which are not inconsistent with the provisions of the 1994 Act, are modified or superseded the same shall continue to remain in force. However, these observations cannot be interpreted in a manner which would entitle the university or the affiliated colleges to claim reimbursement.- In the result, the appeals are allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the writ petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.


                                                                  REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 531-532 OF 2013
              (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.  27286-27287 of 2009)

State of Maharashtra and others                               …Appellants

                                   versus

Nowrosjee Wadia College and others
…Respondents



                               J U D G M E N T
G. S. Singhvi, J.

1.    The question which  arises  for  consideration  in  these  appeals  is
whether respondent Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to reimbursement of  the  amount paid to the teachers by way of leave encashment under  the  statutes  framed by the Pune University.

2.    Dr. Anagha Anant Nadkarni and  Dr.  Moreshwar  J.  Bedekar,  who  were
employed as Professors in respondent No.1 college retired  from  service  in
November, 2003.
They filed applications  before  Pune  University  Grievance
Committee (for short, ‘the Committee’) for encashment of earned leave.  
The
Committee passed order dated 3.5.2007 and recommended payment of the  amount
in lieu of earned leave. However, respondent  No.1  did  not  act  upon  the
recommendations of the Committee.
Therefore, Dr. Anagha Anant  Nadkarni  and
Dr. Moreshwar J. Bedekar filed Writ Petition Nos.8763 and 8775 of  2007  for
issue of  a  mandamus  to  respondent  No.1  to  pay  the  amount  of  leave
encashment.
The same were disposed of by the Division Bench  of  the  Bombay
High Court vide order dated 7.4.2008 along with  11  other  writ  petitions.
The Division  Bench  relied  upon  order  dated  22.1.2007  passed  in  Writ
Petition No.4936/2006 – V.  S.  Agarkar  v.  The  Chairman,  Grievance  Cell
Committee, Pune University and others and held:
      “.  Therefore, there could not be any controversy over  the  issue  of
      entitlement of the petitioners for  encashment  of  unutilised  earned
      leave on superannuation which in the case of V.S. Agarkar (supra)  has
      been discussed at length and, therefore, we dispose of these petitions
      with a direction to the respondent-institution and the Principal  that
      the Principal of the Institution where the petitioners  were  employed
      to pay to the petitioners leave encashment for  maximum  180  days  or
      lesser to the extent that the petitioners are  entitled  to  and  that
      they shall complete the exercise within a period of eight  weeks  from
      today. We further make it clear that the Institution after discharging
      their liability of payment of leave encashment as per the  entitlement
      of the petitioners, are entitled to  claim  reimbursement  by  way  of
      grant from the Respondent-State.”

3.    By another order dated 9.6.2008 passed in Writ  Petition  No.2881/2007
Khandesh College Education Society v. Arjun Hari Narkhede and others,  the
Division Bench of the High Court directed payment  of  leave  encashment  to
the teachers in  terms  of  the  order  passed  in  V.  S.  Agarkar’s  case.
Simultaneously, liberty was given to the institutions to seek  reimbursement
from the State. That order  was  modified  on  20.6.2008  in  the  following
terms:
      “We have disposed of these petitions by common order  dated  9.6.2008.
      It has been pointed out by the petitioner in  W.P.  No.6540/2007  that
      this court has observed that  Grievance  Committee  has  rejected  the
      claim of the petitioner on the ground that it is barred by  delay  and
      latches as the petitioner had approached the Grievance Committee after
      lapse of three years. It is submitted that  this  statement  was  made
      without proper instructions. In  fact,  the  Grievance  Committee  had
      given a report in favour of the petitioner  which  was  dealt  by  the
      Grievance Committee after petition came to be  filed.  We,  therefore,
      record this to be read at the end of Paragraph No.  4  that  later  on
      Counsel has submitted as aforesaid. This does not in any manner affect
      the  substantive  relief  granted  by  the  court  in  favour  of  the
      petitioner.


      2. Learned A.G.P. submitted that this court has observed in concluding
      Paragraph that respondent - institution  will  be  entitled  to  claim
      reimbursement by way of  grant  from  the  respondent  -  State.  
Only
      correction requires to be done is that  the  liability  of  the  State
      would be subject to claim of the  respondent  being  admissible  under
      law. Therefore, we add a sentence at the conclusion of Paragraph No. 9
      if admissible under law. Our order be read accordingly.”


4.    Khandesh College Education Society challenged the orders of  the  High
Court in SLP (C) Nos.17039-17040/2008, which were disposed of by this  Court
vide order dated 5.7.2011 along  with  a  batch  of  similar  special  leave
petitions. 
The two Judge Bench first considered  the  question  
whether  the
provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave)  Rules,  1981  (for  short,‘the 1981 Rules’) are applicable to  the  teachers  employed  by  respondent No.1, and held:


      “From the very language of different provisions  of  Rule  54  of  the
      Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1981 it  is  clear  that  it
      applies only to “a government servant”. Respondents 1 to  14  are  not
      government servants and, therefore, cannot be denied earned  leave  on
      the basis of provisions made in  Rule  54  of  the  Maharashtra  Civil
      Services (Leave) Rules, 1981.”


The Bench then referred  to  the  relevant  provisions  of  the  Maharashtra
Universities Act, 1994 (for short, ‘the  1994  Act’),  Statutes  424(3)  and
424(C) of the University of Pune and observed:
      “On the other hand,  Section  115  of  the  Act  while  repealing  the
      different Acts applicable to different universities in  the  State  of
      Maharashtra provides in sub-section (2)(xii) that  all  Statutes  made
      under the repealed Acts in respect of any existing  university  shall,
      insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of  the  Act,
      continue in force and be deemed to have been made  under  the  Act  in
      respect of the corresponding university until they are  superseded  or
      modified by the Statutes made under the Act.  Hence,  Statutes  424(3)
      and 424(C) of  University  of  Pune,  which  were  applicable  to  the
      University, continue to be in force and are deemed to  be  made  under
      the Act if they are not inconsistent with any provision of the Act  or
      are not superseded, modified by Statutes made under the Act.


      Sections 5(60), 8 and 14(5) of the  Act  confer  power  on  the  State
      Government to exercise control over the University in some matters and
      also  empower  the  State  Government  to  issue  directives  to   the
      University and cast a duty on the Vice-Chancellor to ensure compliance
      with such directives, but these provisions in the Act do not  prohibit
      grant of earned leave to a  teacher  or  Lecturer  of  any  affiliated
      college who can avail a vacation from being entitled to  earned  leave
      or from being entitled to encashment of accumulative earned  leave  at
      the time of retirement. In other words, Statutes 424(3) and 424(C)  of
      University of Pune are not in any way inconsistent with the provisions
      of the Act. The learned counsel for  the  petitioners  and  the  State
      Government have also not brought to our  notice  any  statute  of  the
      University modifying or superseding Statute 424(3) or  Statute  424(C)
      of University of Pune which were applicable to the University.


      Statutes 424(3)  and  424(C)  of  University  of  Pune  are  extracted
      hereinbelow:

           “424. (3). Leave.—
           (a)-(b)     *    *     *
           (c) Earned leave.—

                 (a) The confirmed non-vacation teacher shall be entitled to
                 earned leave at the rate  of  one-eleventh  of  the  period
                 spent on duty subject to his accumulating  maximum  of  180
                 days of leave.

                 (b) The teacher other than the one included  in  (a)  above
                 shall be entitled to one twenty-seventh of the period spent
                 on duty and the period of earned leave as provided  in  the
                 proviso to Section  423  subject  to  his  accumulation  of
                 maximum of 180 days. For this purpose the period of working
                 days only shall be considered.”
                       *     *     *
           “424(C).   Encashment   of   unutilised    earned    leave    on
           superannuation.—The teacher shall be entitled to  encash  earned
           leave in balance to his credit on the date of his superannuation
           subject to a maximum of 180 days.

           In case the teacher  is  required  to  serve  till  the  end  of
           academic session beyond the date of his superannuation, he shall
           be entitled to encash the balance of earned leave to his  credit
           on the date of his actual retirement from service.”


      A reading of Statute 424(3) extracted above would show that clause (a)
      applies to confirmed non-vacation teachers and clause (b)  applies  to
      teachers other than  non-vacation  teachers  and  clause  (b)  clearly
      states  that  teachers  other  than  non-vacation  teachers  shall  be
      entitled to earned leave subject to their accumulation of maximum  180
      days. Statute 424(C), quoted above,  further  provides  that  teachers
      shall be entitled to encash earned leave in balance to their credit on
      the date of his superannuation subject to a maximum of 180 days.


      It, however, appears that the State Government has  issued  directives
      from time to time to the universities to amend the Statutes so  as  to
      ensure that Lecturers or teachers working in Vacation Departments  are
      not entitled to earned leave and encashment of earned leave,  but  the
      fact remains that Statutes 424(3) and 424(C)  of  University  of  Pune
      have not been modified or superseded. There are also no provisions  in
      the Act to the effect that the Statutes  of  a  university  which  are
      inconsistent with the directives  of  the  State  Government  will  be
      invalid. Section 115(2)(xii) rather states that statutes which are not
      inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and which  have  not  been
      modified  or  superseded  shall  continue  to  be  in  force.   Hence,
      Respondents 1 to 14 were entitled to earned leave  and  encashment  of
      earned leave as per the provisions of Statutes 424(3)  and  424(C)  of
      University of Pune.”



5.    After recording the aforesaid  observations,  the  Bench  declined  to
grant leave but gave three months time to  the  SLP  petitioners  to  comply
with the directions given by the High Court.

6.    After 3 years of enactment of the 1994 Act, which resulted  in  repeal
of various existing statutes  including  the  Poona  University  Act,  1974,
under  which  Statutes  424(3)  and  424(C)  had  been  framed,  the   State
Government issued instructions to the Universities  to  discontinue  payment
of leave encashment to the teachers by pointing out that they  fall  in  the
categories of employees working in the  ‘Vacation  Department’.  
The  State
Government also took cognizance of the orders passed by the  High  Court  in
Writ Petition No. 2671/2006 and Contempt Petition No. 191/2006 and  directed
that the University Statutes should be  amended  with  retrospective  effect
and till then, the concerned University should  bear  expenses  incurred  in
payment  of  leave  encashment.  This  was  reiterated  vide  letter   dated
20.10.2008  sent  by  the  Director   of   Education   (Higher   Education),
Maharashtra to all the universities.

7.    In furtherance of the directives given by the  State  Government,  the
Vice-Chancellor of Pune University passed order dated 1.2.2009, which  reads
as under:

      “WHEREAS the Maharashtra State Legislature has enacted the Maharashtra
      Universities Act, 1994 (Maharashtra Act No. XXXV of 1994),  which  has
      come into force with effect from 22nd July, 1994.


      AND WHEREAS as per Section 51(8) of the Maharashtra  Universities  Act
      1994, the University has power to prescribe the terms  and  conditions
      of the services of the teachers by framing Statutes.


      AND WHEREAS the University, in exercise of the power vested in it,  as
      per Section 51(8) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, has framed  the
      Statutes regarding the entitlement, surrender and  encashment  of  the
      earned leave to the teachers.


      State Government, vide its letter dated 9th August,  2007,  University
      to repeal the provisions of earned leave effect, since the teachers of
      the University of the vacation, they are not entitled for earned leave
      in the Statutes with retrospective effect, since the Teachers  of  the
      University and affiliated colleges avail of the vacation, they are not
      entitled for earned leave.


      AND WHEREAS the State Government, vide its further letter  dated  20th
      October, 2008 directed all Universities to repeal  the  provisions  of
      earned leave in the Statues with retrospective effect, within a period
      of one month from the date of the letter.


      AND WHEREAS as per Section 14(5) of the  Maharashtra  University  Act,
      1994, it is, inter alia, duty of the Vice-Chancellor  to  ensure  that
      directives of the State Government are strictly observed.


      AND WHEREAS as per Section 5(60) of the Maharashtra Universities  Act,
      1994, the University has to comply with and carry out  any  directives
      issued by the State Govt from time to time.


      AND WHEREAS a proposal as regards  repealing  the  Statute  424(C)  in
      respect of encashment of earned leave with retrospective  effect,  was
      placed before Management Council in its meeting held on  22nd  August,
      2008.


      AND WHEREAS the Management Council of the University in its above said
      meeting resolved that an administrative decision as regards  repealing
      the Statute 424 (C), be taken and the directives  be  issued  in  this
      regard in view of the provisions of Section 5(60) and Section 14(5) of
      the Maharashtra & Universities Act, 1994.


      AND WHEREAS the Management Council of the University, in  its  meeting
      held on 1st October, 2008 confirmed its earlier  decision  as  regards
      repealing the Statute 424 (G), be taken and the directives  be  issued
      in this regard in view of the provisions of Section 5(60) and  Section
      14(5) of the Maharashtra Universities Act 1994 arid resolved that  the
      said decision be implemented with effect from 1st February, 2009.


      AND WHEREAS it will take some time to  repeal  the  said  Statute  and
      place the same before the Statutory Authorities in the  University  as
      laid down in Section 52 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994.


      Therefore, I Dr. Narendra Damodar  Jadhav,  Vice-  chancellor  of  the
      University of Pune, by and under the powers vested in  the  under  sub
      section 8 of Section 14 of the  Maharashtra  Universities  Act,  1994,
      hereby issue the following directives;


      The Teachers Statute 424 (C) is repealed w.e.f. 1st February, 2009.


        Ref: No.LAW/2009/73        Dr. Narendra Jadhav
        Dated 1.2.2009                        Vice-Chancellor.

        Present Statute                       Amendment  Statute after
                                                                    Proposed
amendment

      Statute 424 (C) encashment of    Delete
         Unutilized   Earned   Leave on    statute 424
         Superannuation                           (C)


      The teacher shall be entitled to encash earned  leave  in  balance  to
      his credit on the date of his superannuation  subject  to   a  maximum
      of 180 days.


      In case the teacher is required to serve  till  the  end  of  academic
      session beyond  the  date of  his superannuation, he shall be entitled
      to encash the balance of earned leave to his credit on the date of his
      actual retirement from service.”


                      (The order has been extracted from the SLP paper-book)
8.    Feeling aggrieved by the directives issued by  the  State  Government,
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed Writ Petition  No.6609/2009  for  issue  of  a
mandamus  to  the  State  Government  to  reimburse  the  total  amount   of
Rs.4,46,815/- paid to  Dr.  Anagha  Anant  Nadkarni  and  Dr.  Moreshwar  J.
Bedekar and for grant of a declaration that State Government  is  liable  to
reimburse the amount paid to other teachers by way of leave encashment.

9.    The State Government contested the writ petition by relying  upon  the
provisions of the 1981 Rules and the instructions issued for repeal  of  the
Statutes with retrospective effect and pleaded  that  the  writ  petitioners
are not entitled to reimbursement  of  the  leave  encashment  paid  to  the
teachers employed in the ‘Vacation Department’.

10.   The Division Bench of the High Court referred to order dated  7.4.2008
passed in Writ Petition No. 8763/2007 and connected matters and disposed  of
the writ petition vide order dated 24.8.2009 by  taking  cognizance  of  the
statement made by the Assistant Government Pleader that the amount  paid  to
the teachers will be reimbursed by way of  grant.  The  Director  of  Higher
Education and others filed Civil Application No.2320/2009  for  modification
of order dated 24.8.2009. The same was disposed of  by  the  High  Court  on
9.10.2009 by relieving the Assistant Government Pleader  of  the  concession
made by him. However, the direction given for reimbursement  of  the  amount
paid by the institutions to  the  teachers  in  lieu  of  earned  leave  was
maintained on the premise that order dated 7.4.2008 passed in Writ  Petition
No.8763/2007 and batch has become final.

11.   On  3.11.2009,  this  Court  ordered  notice  in  SLP  (C)  Nos.27286-
27287/2009 but dismissed a batch of special  leave  petitions  by  recording
the following observations:

      “These SLPs arise from the common order dated 7.4.2008 in a  batch  of
      writ petitions. There is a delay of 480 days.


      It is submitted that the order dated 7.4.2008 has been   followed   in
        another   batch   of   cases - Khandesh  College  Education  Society
      vs.   Arjun   Hari   Narkhede   &   Ors.   and    connected      cases
      W.P.No.2881/2007   dated 9.6.2008. Later, having found that there  was
      an obvious omission, the   High   Court   made    an   amendment    to
      the   order dated 9.6.2008,   by order dated 20.6.2008 by  adding  the
      words “if admissible under law"  after  the  words  "are  entitled  to
      claim   reimbursement by way    of    grant     from  the  Respondent-
      State".   It is submitted that the High Court, having  made  the  said
      amendment   in the  order  dated  9.6.2008  in  W.P.(C)  No.2881/2007,
      ought to have made the said correction in  the  impugned  order  dated
      7.4.2008 also as that order also contained  a    similar  omission  by
      oversight.  Therefore, it will be    appropriate  if  the  petitioner-
      State approaches the High Court and  point  out  that  the  correction
      having been found necessary in the order dated 9.6.2008,  it ought  to
      have been made in the order  7.4.2008   also   when  correcting    the
      order dated 9.6.2008.”



12.   In furtherance of the observations made by this Court, the  appellants
filed applications for clarification of order dated 7.4.2008 passed  by  the
High Court. Respondent Nos.  1  and  2  resisted  the  prayer  made  in  the
applications by asserting that the clarifications sought by the State  would
completely change the nature of relief granted  by  the  High  Court.  After
considering the objections, the High  Court  passed  order  dated  3.5.2011,
paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of which read as under:
      “5. In our opinion, the clarification sought by the applicant-State of
      Maharashtra is a benign clarification. Inasmuch  as,  the  respondents
      (original writ petitioners) or the management of the school  in  which
      the teachers were employed and have been paid leave encashment amount,
      cannot be heard to contend that the management would be  entitled  for
      reimbursement of the amount so paid  by  them  even  if  the  same  is
      inadmissible in law. In other words, the directions contained  in  the
      order dated 7.4.2008 will have to  be  understood  to  mean  that  the
      management would be entitled to claim reimbursement by  way  of  grant
      from the respondent-State to the extent of the amount paid  by  it  to
      the  teachers as leave encashment, if permissible in law.


      6. In this view of the matter, we allow all these  Civil  Applications
      by adding at the end of paragraph 4, the following words:-


                          “if permissible in law.”


      7. We, however, record the submission of the management as well as the
      teachers (original writ petitioners) with approval that the fact  that
      such clarification has been issued does not necessarily mean that  the
      management is not entitled for reimbursement in law. That is a  matter
      which will have to be examined in appropriate proceedings as and  when
      occasion arises.”



13.   Shri Chinmoy Khaladkar, learned counsel for  the  appellants  referred
to the provisions of the 1994 Act,  the  1981  Rules  and  argued  that  the
appellants are not obliged to reimburse the amount paid by  respondent  No.1
to the teachers by way of leave encashment in terms of the  Statutes  framed
by the Pune University because neither the Poona University  Act,  1974  nor
any other enactment mandates reimbursement of the amount  paid  in  lieu  of
the earned leave. Learned counsel pointed out that in terms of Rules 52  and
54 of the 1981 Rules, the teachers employed in the Government  colleges  are
not entitled to the benefit of leave encashment and  argued  that  it  would
amount to invidious discrimination if the teachers employed in  the  private
colleges affiliated to the University are held entitled to  the  benefit  of
leave encashment.

14.   Shri Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel  for  respondent  Nos.  1
and 2 argued that despite the order passed by the High  Court  on  3.5.2011,
the appellants are duty bound to reimburse the colleges the amount  paid  to
the teachers by way of leave encashment. Learned  senior  counsel  submitted
that in view of Section 115(2), the existing Statutes  and  Ordinances  made
under the Acts specified in sub-section (1) of Section 115  will  be  deemed
to have been saved because the University had not framed fresh  Statutes  or
repealed the existing Statutes.

15.   We have considered the  respective  arguments.  Sections  3(1),  5(9),
5(49), 5(57), 5(60), 8(1)(a) to 8(c),  8(1)(g),  8(2),  8(3),  8(4),  14(5),
51(5),  51(8),  52(6),  115(1)  and  115(2)(xii)  of  the  1994  Act,  Rules
50(1)(a), 50(1)(b), 52, 54(1), 54(2), the relevant extract  of  Appendix  II
of the 1981 Rules and Statutes 424(3) and  424(C),  which  have  bearing  on
these appeals, read as under:

      The 1994 Act.
      “3. Incorporation of universities:- (1) In relation  to  each  of  the
      existing universities specified  in  column  (1)  of  Part  I  of  the
      Schedule, with effect from the date of commencement of this  Act,  the
      corresponding university with the name, specified against it in column
      (2) of the said Part, is hereby constituted under this  Act,  for  the
      same area specified in column (3) of the said Part for  which  it  was
      constituted immediately before the date of commencement of this Act.


      5. Powers and duties of university: - The university  shall  have  the
      following powers and duties, namely:-

      (1) to (8)  xxx        xxx        xxx

      (9) to create posts of  directors,  principals,  professors,  readers,
      lecturers and other teaching or non-vacation academic  posts  required
      by the university with the prior approval of the State Government  and
      to prescribe their qualifications and make appointments thereto;

      (10) to (48)     xxx         xxx        xxx

      (49) to  lay  down  for  teachers  and  university  teachers,  service
      conditions including code of conduct, workload, norms  of  performance
      appraisal, and such  other  instructions  or  directions  as,  in  the
      opinion of the university, may be necessary in academic matters;

      (50) to (56)     xxx         xxx        xxx

      (57) to evolve an operational scheme for  ensuring  accountability  of
      teachers,  non-vacation  academic  and  non-teaching  staff   of   the
      university, institutions and colleges;

      (58) to (59)     xxx         xxx        xxx

      (60) to comply with and carry out any directives issued by  the  State
      Government from time to time, with reference to above  powers,  duties
      and responsibilities of the university.


      8. Control of State  Govt.  and  universities:  -  (1)  Without  prior
      approval of the State Government, the university shall not, -

      (a) create new posts of teachers, officers or other employees;

      (b) revise the pay, allowances,  post-retirement  benefits  and  other
      benefits of its teachers, officers and other employees;

      (c) grant any special pay, allowance or other  extra  remuneration  of
      any description whatsoever, including  ex  gratia,  payment  or  other
      benefits having  financial  implications,  to  any  of  its  teachers,
      officers or other employees;

      (d) to (f)  xxx        xxx        xxx

      (g) take any  decision  regarding  affiliated  colleges  resulting  in
      increased financial liability,  direct  or  indirect,  for  the  State
      Government.


      (2) The university shall be competent to incur  expenditure  from  the
      funds received from, -

      (a) various funding agencies without any share  or  contribution  from
      the State Government;

      (b) fees for academic programmes started on self-supporting basis;

      (c)  contributions  received   from   the   individuals,   industries,
      institutions, organisations or any person whosoever,  to  further  the
      objectives of the university;

      (d) contributions or fees for academic or other  services  offered  by
      the university;

      (e) development fund, if any, established by the university;

      for the purposes of -

      (i) creation of post in various categories for specific period;

      (ii) granting pay, allowances and other benefits to the posts  created
      through its own funds provided  those  posts  are  not  held  by  such
      persons, who are holding the posts for which  government  contribution
      is received;

      (iii) starting any academic programme on self-supporting basis;

      (iv) incurring expenditure on any development work;


      without referring the matter for approval  of  the  State  Government,
      provided  there  is  no  financial  liability,  direct  or   indirect,
      immediate or in future on the State Government.


      (3) The  State  Government  may  in  accordance  with  the  provisions
      contained in this Act, for the purpose  of  securing  and  maintaining
      uniform standards, by notification in the Official Gazette,  prescribe
      a Standard Code providing for the classification, manner and  mode  of
      selection  and  appointment,  absorption  of  teachers  and  employees
      rendered surplus, reservation of post  in  favour  of  member  of  the
      Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta  Jatis)
      and Nomadic Tribes and Other Backward Classes, duties  workload,  pay,
      allowances,  postretirement  benefits,  other  benefits,  conduct  and
      disciplinary matters and other conditions of service of the  officers,
      teachers and other employees of the universities and the teachers  and
      other employees in the affiliated colleges and recognised institutions
      (other than those managed and  maintained  by  the  State  Government,
      Central Government and the  local  authorities).  When  such  Code  is
      prescribed, the provisions made in the Code  shall  prevail,  and  the
      provisions made in the Statutes,  Ordinances,  Regulations  and  Rules
      made under this Act, for matter included in the  Code  shall,  to  the
      extent to which they are inconsistent with the provisions of the Code,
      be invalid.


      (4) In case of failure of the university to exercise powers or perform
      duties specified  in  section  5  or  where  the  university  has  not
      exercised such powers or performed such duties  adequately,  or  where
      there has been a failure to comply with any order issued by the  State
      Government, the State Government may, on making such inquiry as it may
      deem fit, issue a directive to the university for proper  exercise  of
      such powers or performance of such duties or comply  with  the  order;
      and it shall be the  duty  of  the  university  to  comply  with  such
      direction.


      Provided that, in  case  the  university  fails  to  comply  with  the
      directives, the State Government shall call  upon  the  university  to
      give reasons in writing why the directives were not complied with.  If
      the State Government is not satisfied with  the  explanation,  it  may
      refer the matter to the Chancellor for taking necessary  action  under
      sub-section (3) of section 9.


      (5)   xxx        xxx         xxx
       [


      14. Powers and duties of Vice-Chancellor:-

      (1) to (4)  xxx        xxx        xxx

      (5) It shall be the duty of the Vice-Chancellor  to  ensure  that  the
      directives of the State Government if any and the  provisions  of  the
      Act, Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations are  strictly  observed  and
      that the decisions of the authorities, bodies and committees which are
      not inconsistent with the Act, Statutes, Ordinances or Regulations are
      properly implemented.

      (6) to (14)      xxx         xxx        xxx


      51. Statutes:- Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Statutes may
      provide for all or any of the following matters, namely :-

      (1) to (4)  xxx        xxx        xxx


      (5) the principles governing the seniority and service  conditions  of
      the employees of the university;

      (6) to (7)  xxx        xxx        xxx


      (8) qualifications, recruitment, workload, code of conduct,  terms  of
      office,  duties  and  conditions  of   service,   including   periodic
      assessment of teachers, officers and other employees of the university
      and the affiliated colleges (except  those  colleges  or  institutions
      maintained by the State or Central Government or a  local  authority),
      the provision of pension, gratuity and provident fund, the  manner  of
      termination of their services, as approved by the State Government;

      (9) to (17)      xxx         xxx        xxx


      52. Statutes how made:-

      (1) to (5)  xxx        xxx        xxx


      (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing  sub-sections,
      the Chancellor, either  suo  motu  or  on  the  advice  of  the  State
      Government, may, direct the  university  to  make  provisions  in  the
      Statutes in respect of any matter specified by him and if  the  Senate
      fails to implement such a direction within sixty days of its  receipt,
      the  Chancellor  may,  after  considering   the   reasons,   if   any,
      communicated by the Senate for its  inability  to   comply  with  such
      direction, make or amend the Statutes suitably.


      115. Repeal and savings:- 
(1) On and from the date of commencement  of
      this Act,-

      (a) the Bombay University Act, 1974  (Mah.XXII of 1974);
      (b) the Poona University Act, 1974 (Mah.XXIII of 1974);
      (c) the Shivaji University Act, 1974 (Mah.XXIV of 1974);
      (d)  the  Dr.  Babasaheb  Ambedkar  Marathwada  University  Act,  1974
      (Mah.XXV of 1974);
      (e) the Act, 1974 (Mah.XXVI of 1974);
      (f) the Shreemati Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women’s University  Act,
      1974 (Mah.XXVII of 1974)
      (g) the Amravati University Act, 1983 (Mah.XXXVII of 1983); and
      (h) the North Maharashtra Universities Act, 1989, shall stand repealed
      (Mah.XXIX of 1989).

      (2) Notwithstanding the repeal of the said Acts, -

      (i) to (xi)      xxx         xxx        xxx

      (xii) all Statutes and Ordinances made under the said Acts in  respect
      of  any  existing  university  shall,  in  so  far  as  they  are  not
      inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, continue in force and be
      deemed  to  have  been  made  under  this  Act  in  respect   of   the
      corresponding university by the Senate or the Management  Council,  as
      the case may be of that  university,  until  they  are  superseded  or
      modified by the Statutes made under this Act;”


      The 1981 Rules.


      “50. Earned leave for Government Servant serving in Departments  other
      than Vacation Department— (1)(a) The leave account of every Government
      servant  who  is  serving  in  a  Department  other  than  a  vacation
      Department, shall be credited with earned leave, in  advance,  in  two
      instalments of 15 days each on the first day of January  and  July  of
      every calendar year.


      (b) The leave at the credit of a Government servant at  the  close  of
      the previous half year shall be carried forward to the next half year,
      subject to the condition that the leave so carried  forward  plus  the
      credit for the half year do not exceed the limit of 240 days.


      52. Vacation Department—A  Vacation  Department  is,  subject  to  the
      exceptions and to the extent stated in Appendix II,  a  department  or
      part of a department to which regular vacations  are  allowed,  during
      which a Government servant serving in the department is  permitted  to
      be absent from duty.


      54. Earned leave for persons serving  in  Vacation  Departments—(1)  A
      Government servant serving in  a  Vacation  Department  shall  not  be
      entitled to any earned leave in respect of duty performed in any  year
      in which he avails himself of the full vacation.


      (2)(a) In respect of any year in which  a  Government  servant  avails
      himself of a portion of the vacation, he shall be entitled  to  earned
      leave in such proportion of 30 days, as the number of days of vacation
      not taken bears to the full vacation:

      Provided that no such  leave  shall  be  admissible  to  a  Government
      servant not in permanent employment in respect of the  first  year  of
      his service.

      (b) If, in any year, the Government servant does not avail himself  of
      any vacation earned leave shall be admissible to  him  in  respect  of
      that year under rule 50.

      Explanation – For the purposes of this rule, the term “year” shall  be
      construed as meaning not calendar year but twelve months  actual  duty
      in a Vacation Department.

      Note 1.- A Government Servant entitled to vacation shall be considered
      to have availed himself of a vacation  or  a  portion  of  a  vacation
      unless he had been required by general or special order  of  a  higher
      authority to forego such vacation or portion of a  vacation;  provided
      that if he has been prevented by such order from  enjoying  more  than
      fifteen days of the vacation, he shall be considered to  have  availed
      himself of no portion of the vacation.

      Note 2.- When a Government servant serving in  a  Vacation  Department
      proceeds on leave before completing a full year of  duty,  the  earned
      leave admissible to him shall be calculated not with reference to  the
      vacations which fall during the period of actual duty rendered  before
      proceeding on leave but with reference  to  the  vacations  that  fall
      during the year commencing from the date on  which  he  completed  the
      previous year of duty.


                                 APPENDIX II
                                (See rule 52)
        List of Government servants serving in Vacation/Non-vacation
                                 Department


      The  following  classes  of  Government  servants  serve  in  Vacation
      Departments when the conditions of rule 52 are fulfilled:—


      1.  (a)  Under  the  Directorate  of  Education,  —(i)  All  Heads  of
      Government Educational Institutions belonging to Class I, II and III.

      (ii) Professors, Readers, Associate Professors,  Research  Assistants,
      Lecturers, Assistant Lecturers, Demonstrators, Tutors in Class  I,  II
      and III, as the case may be, in Government Arts, Science, Commerce and
      Law Colleges.

      (iii) Professors, Lecturers, Co-ordinators, Assistant  Lecturers  etc.
      in Class I, II and III as the case  may  be,  in  Government  Training
      Colleges.

      (iv)  Physical  Instructors  in  Government  Colleges  and   Secondary
      Schools.

      (v)  Laboratory  Assistants,  Laboratory  Attendants   in   Government
      Colleges and Secondary Schools.

      (vi) Lecturers or other teachers in  Government  Primary,  Middle  and
      Secondary Schools and  in  Primary  Training  Institutions  and  other
      special Institutions.

      (vii) All other  staff  in  Government  Institutions  excepting  those
      mentioned as belonging to Non-Vacation Department.”


      Statutes
      “424. (3). Leave.—


      (a)-(b)     *    *     *


      (c) Earned leave.—


      (a) The confirmed non-vacation teacher shall  be  entitled  to  earned
      leave at the rate of one-eleventh of the period spent on duty  subject
      to his accumulating maximum of 180 days of leave.


      (b) The teacher other than the one included  in  (a)  above  shall  be
      entitled to one twenty-seventh of the period spent  on  duty  and  the
      period of earned leave as provided  in  the  proviso  to  Section  423
      subject to his accumulation of maximum of 180 days. For  this  purpose
      the period of working days only shall be considered.


      424(C). Encashment of unutilised earned leave  on  superannuation.—The
      teacher shall be entitled to encash earned leave  in  balance  to  his
      credit on the date of his superannuation subject to a maximum  of  180
      days.


      In case the teacher is required to serve  till  the  end  of  academic
      session beyond the date of his superannuation, he shall be entitled to
      encash the balance of earned leave to his credit on the  date  of  his
      actual retirement from service.”

16.   An analysis of the provisions of the 1994 Act shows that  universities
constituted under Section 3(1) are autonomous and they are,  by  and  large,
independent  in  their  functioning.   However,  the  State  Government  can
exercise control in  some  matters  including  those  which  have  financial
implications and issue directives which are  binding  on  the  universities.
The creation of posts and conditions of service of  the  teaching  and  non-
teaching staff which impacts finances of  the  universities  are  some  such
matters.  Section 8  makes  it  obligatory  for  the  universities  to  seek
approval of the State Government for creation  of  new  posts  of  teachers,
officers or other employees and revision of  their  pay,  allowances,  post-
retirement benefits, etc.  No university can grant special pay or  allowance
or extra remuneration to the employees except with  the  prior  approval  of
the State Government. Likewise, any decision regarding  affiliated  colleges
resulting  in  additional  financial  liability  can  be  taken  only  after
obtaining approval from the State Government.   The  Statutes  framed  under
Section 51(8) in matters like qualifications,  recruitment,  workload,  code
of conduct, terms of office, duties and conditions of service  of  teachers,
officers and other employees of the university and the affiliated  colleges,
except those maintained by the  State  or  Central  Government  or  a  local
authority, require approval of the State Government.  By virtue  of  Section
115(2)(xii), the Statutes  framed  by  various  universities  prior  to  the
enforcement of the 1994  Act  were  continued  till  their  supersession  or
modification by the Statutes made under the new Act.

17.   We may now advert to the 1981 Rules.  Rule 50(1) lays down that  leave
account of every  Government  servant  other  than  the  one  serving  in  a
Vacation Department shall be credited with earned leave, in advance, in  two
instalments of 15 days each in January and July of every year and the  leave
at the credit of a Government servant at the  close  of  the  previous  half
year is to be carried forward to the next half year subject to  the  maximum
limit of 240 days.  Rule 52 defines the Vacation Department as a  department
or part thereof to which regular vacations are allowed and during  which  an
employee serving in that department is permitted to  be  absent  from  duty.
As per Appendix  II,  which  finds  reference  in  Rule  52,  all  Heads  of
Government Education Institutions belonging to Class I, Class II  and  Class
III and Professors, Readers, Associate  Professors  and  other  teachers  in
Class I, II and III employed in Government Arts, Science, Commerce  and  Law
Colleges, Government Training Colleges, Physical Instructors  in  Government
Colleges  and   Secondary   Schools,   Laboratory   Assistants,   Laboratory
Attendants in Government  Colleges  and  Secondary  Schools,  Lecturers  and
other teachers in Government Primary, Middle and Secondary  Schools  and  in
Primary Training Institutions and other special Institutions as  also  other
staff in Government Institutions, except those  mentioned  as  belonging  to
Non-Vacation  Department,  are  treated   as   serving   in   the   Vacation
Departments.

18.   Although, Rule 54 has the caption “Earned leave  for  persons  serving
in Vacation Departments”, sub-rule (1) thereof declares  that  a  Government
servant serving in a Vacation  Department  shall  not  be  entitled  to  any
earned leave in respect of duty performed in any year  in  which  he  avails
the full vacation.  Sub-rule (2) of Rule 54 deals with a situation in  which
a Government servant avails himself of a portion of the  vacation,  in  that
event he is entitled to earned leave in such proportion of 30  days  as  the
number of days of vacation not taken bears to the full vacation. Clause  (b)
of Rule 54(2) lays down that if a Government servant does not avail  himself
of any vacation in any year, earned leave shall  be  admissible  to  him  in
respect of that year in terms of Rule 50.

19.    We  are  in  complete  agreement  with  the  view  expressed  by  the
coordinate Bench in Khandesh College Education  Society,  Jalgaon  v.  Arjun
Hari Narkhede (2011) 7 SCC 172, that the provisions contained  in  the  1981
Rules are not applicable to the university teachers and the teachers of  the
affiliated colleges because  they  are  not  Government  servants  but  this
cannot lead to an inference that the affiliated  colleges  are  entitled  to
reimbursement of the amount paid to the teachers in lieu  of  earned  leave.
Though the Statutes framed  by  the  Pune  University  under  the  1974  Act
entitle the teachers of the affiliated colleges to get the benefit of  leave
encashment, there is no provision either in that Act  or  in  the  1994  Act
which obligates  the  State  Government  to  extend  the  benefit  of  leave
encashment to the university teachers or to the teachers of  the  affiliated
colleges and the mere fact that the Statutes of  the  particular  university
provide for grant of leave encashment to the teachers, does not entitle  the
concerned university or  college  to  claim  reimbursement  from  the  State
Government as of right.

20.   The criticism of the directives issued by the State Government to  the
universities to amend the Statutes under which the teachers  are  given  the
benefit of leave encashment is wholly misplaced. 
It is neither  the  pleaded
case of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 nor it has been  argued  by  Shri  Gonsalves
that the teachers employed in the Government colleges are  entitled  to  the
benefit of leave encashment. 
Therefore, the State Government  was  perfectly
justified  in  issuing  directives  to  the  universities  to  amend   their
Statutes.
 No doubt, in some of the communications reference  has  been  made
to Rules 50, 52 and 54 of the 1981 Rules but this does not detract from  the
fact that the State Government is empowered to issue such directives.
 It  is
a different thing that for almost two years the Pune  University  failed  to
take action in accordance with the binding directives issued  by  the  State
Government.

21.   In paragraph 18 of the Khandesh College Education Society, Jalgaon  v.
Arjun Hari  Narkhede  (supra),  
this  Court  has  taken  cognizance  of  the
directives issued  by  the  State  Government  from  time  to  time  to  the
universities to amend the Statutes and  
observed  that 
 till  the  Statutes,
which are not  inconsistent  with  the  provisions  of  the  1994  Act,  are
modified or superseded the same shall continue to remain in force. 
However,
these observations cannot be interpreted in a  manner  which  would  entitle
the university or the affiliated colleges to claim reimbursement.

22.   In the result, the appeals are allowed, the impugned  orders  are  set
aside and the writ petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2  is  dismissed.
The parties are left to bear their own costs.

                                                             ..….………………….…J.
                                                 [G.S. SINGHVI]


                                                             ..….………………….…J.
                                                 [H.L. GOKHALE]
New Delhi,
January 29, 2013.
-----------------------
25


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.