Non-Teaching Staff Of Aided Social Work Colleges Entitled To Leave Encashment On Retirement: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently held that on superannuation, non-teaching staff of aided social work colleges are also entitled to leave encashment under the Maharashtra Non-Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Rules, 1984.

A division bench comprising Justices Rohit Deo and Vrushali Joshi allowed an Assistant Librarian’s plea who was directed to return Rs. 5.2 lakh he received as leave encashment after 34 years of service.

“We have no hesitation in holding, that the petitioner and similarly situated employees are entitled to the benefit of leave encashment in view of Rule 39 of the Rules of 1984,” the bench ruled.

This judgment assumes significance as the State stopped leave encashment for non-teaching staff on the ground that it was not specifically provided in a Government Resolution issued in 2014. The court found the State’s reliance on the GR untenable.

“It is slightly disconcerting that such contention is raised by the State Government which is expected to be conscious of the fundamental principle of law, that the benefit conferred by statutory provisions cannot be diluted much less obliterated by issuing administrative directions...”

The court added, “We are constrained to suggest to the State Government that pleas, even argumentative pleas, in the affidavit in response submitted in the High Court or any other Court, may be vetted and approved by competent legal minds.”

On March 17, 2023 the Assistant Commissioner of Social Welfare directed recovery of Rs. 5.2 lakhs from the petitioner – Pramod Deshmukh- citing his lack of entitlement. He was working as an assistant librarian with Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society.

The contentious GR was issued following an order of the Bombay High Court that directed Pension Scheme to be applicable to the teaching and non-teaching employees of Social Work Colleges.

Advocate PD Meghe submitted that the State appeared to be labouring under an erroneous and untenable impression and assumption. There was no need for the High Court or the GR to deal with leave encashment as that was already provided under the Rules, he submitted.

He claimed, employees who superannuated prior to the issuance of Government Resolution did receive the benefit of leave encashment.

He emphasized that the Rules framed under the Amravati University Act, 1983 and the benefits flowing from the statutory provisions, could not be diluted or obliterated on assumptions.

The State submitted that retiral benefits receivable by employees of the Social Work Colleges flowed from Government Resolution which was issued in view of the High Court’s directions. Since the High Court restricted the relief only to pension and gratuity, the State Government is not obligated to pay leave encashment to the employees of the Social Work Colleges, the State added.

The bench, however, observed that the State’s affidavit failed to even deal with the statutory rules allowing leave encashment for non-teaching staff and expressed surprise at its untenable stand.

“We note that there is nothing in the Parent Act or in the Rules of 1984 which make the effect and implementation of Rule 39 conditional upon or subject to the exercise of administrative power by the State Government.”

Accordingly the bench directed the Department of Social Justice and Special Assistance to determine the amount of leave encashment based upon fixation of pay of petitioner on the basis of 7th Pay Commission recommendations and to release entire amount of gratuity and leave encashment to the petitioner.

Case Title: Pramod vs State of Maharashtra [ WP No. 2368 of 2022]

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 262

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment