AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:
a. For issuance of an appropriate writ/ order/ direction or a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the order vide memo no RU/L/13/2025 dated 07.05.2025 passed by the order of the Vice Chancellor, through the Registrar, Ranchi University and letter no. G.C.32/25 dated 11.04.2025 issued by the Principal Gossner College, Ranchi (Annexure 2 series), whereby and whereunder it was stated that no earned leave is due of the petitioner, and he has exhausted all the leave earned in his long medical treatment and some other reasons.
b. For issuance of an appropriate writ/ order/ direction or a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing upon the respondents to Calculate the entire earned leave accumulated in the E.L. account of the petitioner as per law and accordingly pay the entire earned leave as per the provisions of law.
c. For issuance of an appropriate writ/ order/ direction or a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing upon the respondents to pay statutory interest on the entire Earned Leave which was withheld by the respondents illegally from the date of retirement of the petitioner till date.
d. For issuance of an appropriate writ/ order/ direction or a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing upon the respondents to pay compensation for the mental harassment suffered by the petitioner and also pay for the legal expenses incurred by the petitioner.
e. For issuance of an appropriate writ/ order/ direction or a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing upon the respondents to pay the interest on the delayed payment of difference of Gratuity amount (Rs. 10,00,000/-).
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the retired Professor of Gossner College, Ranchi, a Deficit Grant Minority College affiliated with Ranchi University, Ranchi. The petitioner served the College for almost 40 years in different assignments and eventually retired on 30.11.2018. Despite 40 years of long service the petitioner was denied his constitutional right to receive the accumulated Earned Leave amount. Earlier the petitioner filed a writ petition vide WP(S) No. 3473 of 2019 before this Court with a prayer for grant of Monthly Pension, Gratuity, Provident Fund and payment of Leave Encashment as per 7th pay.
During the pendency of the writ, most of the grievances of the petitioner was resolved except the payment of Leave Encashment and difference of Gratuity from 6th to 7th Pay scale. This Court after hearing all the parties disposed of the petition with direction to the Ranchi University to first decide the entitlements of the petitioner within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if any funds are to be disbursed, the University and the State Government should take appropriate action, so that the benefit be reached to the petitioner within seven weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Since the respondent were reluctant in complying the order of the Court in its true letter and spirit, the petitioner filed the Contempt Petition vide Cont. (C) No. 577 of 2024. During the pendency of the contempt petition, the Ranchi University paid the difference of gratuity amount to the petitioner and passed the impugned order vide memo no. RU/L/13/2025 dated 07.05.2025 (Annexure 2) wherein on the basis of the letter dated 11.04.2025 issued by the Principal, Gossner College, concluded that the petitioner has no Earned Leave accumulated in his leave account and accordingly rejected the claim for payment of EL of the petitioner.
The Court was pleased to drop the contempt on the respondents vide order dated 09.05.2025 with the liberty to challenge the reasoned order dated 07.05.2025 which has been passed against the petitioner. Hence, the order dated 07.05.2025 & letter dated 11.04.2025 have been challenged in the instant writ petition.
Ld. Sr. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by Ranchi University vide memo no. RU/L/13/2025 dated 07.05.2025 is against the letter and spirit of the directions given by this Court where the specific direction was to Ranchi University to decide the entitlements of the petitioner. However, the respondent no. 1 (Ranchi University) ignored the clear-cut direction of this Court and passed the impugned order only on the basis of the recommendation from the respondent no. 3 vide letter no. G.C 32/25 dated 11.04.2025 which itself was not supported by any document nor by any law in declaring the E.L. account of the petitioner as exhausted.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has already exhausted all the leave earned in his long medical treatment and some other reasons. He further submitted that the petitioner often did not take the leave of the college before going for medical treatment and used to keep the college unaware of his medical treatment many times.
Learned counsel further submits that the UGC norms regarding Earned Leave came out in 2018, however, the same has been adopted and notified by Ranchi University, Ranchi vide letter dated 16.08.2022, w.e.f. 06.08.2021, and since the petitioner had retired earlier, so there is no way UGC norms could apply for the petitioner’s claim.
Having heard Ld. Sr. Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires that the petitioner is the retired Professor of Gossner College, Ranchi who served the College for almost 40 years and eventually retired on 30.11.2018. It is the case of the petitioner that despite 40 years of long service the petitioner has been denied to receive the accumulated Earned Leave amount and vide memo no. RU/L/13/2025 dated 07.05.2025 (Annexure 2) wherein on the basis of the letter dated 11.04.2025 issued by the Principal, Gossner College, concluded that the petitioner has no Earned Leave accumulated in his leave account and accordingly rejected the claim for payment of EL of the petitioner.
Thus, the main issue in this case is whether the EL accumulation of the petitioner is zero as claimed by the college management or not. If not, how much EL is accumulated in the accounts of the petitioner for payment.
During the course of hearing, Ld. Counsel appearing for the College management produced a set of documents, which have been taken on record and from the said set of documents, it appears that 140 days’ medical leave of the petitioner was sanctioned. However, the said record also indicates that the petitioner remained absent for a further period of 66 days without submitting any application. The tabulation further reflects that the petitioner had accumulated 119 days of earned leave, out of which 66 days, being the period of unauthorized absence, were deducted, and accordingly it was concluded that 53 days of earned leave remained payable in favour of the petitioner.
This was in total contradiction to the counter affidavit filed by the college dated 25.06.2026 wherein in Annexure 1 it has been stated that 168 days of medical leave has been sanctioned and the 60 days of un-authorised leave.
Taking the set of documents as the final stance of the college, it transpires that the college has admitted that 140 days of medical leave were granted to the petitioner for treatment of blood cancer, and that the petitioner was undergoing treatment for a life-threatening disease. Even if, for the sake of argument, the petitioner remained absent for a period beyond the 140 days without specific sanction, the college has never formally declared such absence as unauthorised during service and never initiated any departmental inquiry; nor did the college pass any order treating such period as a ground to forfeit earned leave.
The petitioner received salary every month for the entire period including his treatment, and no show-cause notice was ever served to him; the continuous payment of salary for the period of leave is acknowledgement by the college that the leave was authorised, and the same cannot be retrospectively re-characterised as unauthorised for the purpose of denying leave encashment.
The College management itself relied upon the letter dated 14.01.2005 issued by the Secretary, UGC, with regard to the leave rules prescribed by the UGC for teachers of Universities/Colleges. Referring to paragraph 7 thereof, it was submitted that commuted leave not exceeding half the amount of half pay leave due may be granted on the basis of a medical certificate from a registered medical practitioner to a permanent teacher, subject to a maximum of 240 days during the entire service period, and therefore, 100 more days of medical leave were available in the leave account of the petitioner and the alleged 66 days of unauthorised leave can easily be adjusted from this remaining 100 days of medical leave.
Further, serious irregularities in the calculation of earned leave is reflected in the tabulation sheet as in the counter affidavit the college tabulated 105 days of EL and in the set of documents the accumulation was changed to 119 days within the span of less than one month. Moreover, the leave calculation is not as per the UGC guidelines issued vide letter dated 14.01.2005 annexed and relied upon by the college itself.
Further, the College Management has not maintained any record regarding the duties performed by the petitioner during vacation periods throughout his service tenure and accordingly the EL accumulated through those duties were also not included in the tabulation sheet which is an essential part of the EL tabulation as per the UGC guidelines dated 14.01.2005 (internal page no. 45) and the old Statutes dated 18.11.1980.
Finally, as per the UGC guidelines dated 14.01.2005, the tabulation of EL is 12 days per year of service which accumulates to (40 x 12), i.e., 480 days plus the duties performed in vacation (for which the College has maintained no records). However, if the EL is calculated as per old Statute dated 18.11.1980, the tabulation of EL is 3 days per year of completed service which accumulates to (40 X 3), i.e., 120 day plus the duties performed in vacation (for which the College has maintained no records) and if we take 3 days of leave accumulated during duty in vacation it will amount to (40 X 3), i.e., 120 days and the total EL account will be of 240 days.
However, since the Ranchi University is paying maximum EL of 180 days for the teachers retiring before 06.08.2021 the petitioner in any case is eligible for 180 days of EL.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents have erred in calculating the Earned Leave and concluding that the petitioner has exhausted all the leaves earned in his long medical treatment or some other reasons, as such, the impugned order dated 07.05.2025 and letter dated 11.04.2025 are, hereby, quashed and set aside.
The respondents are directed to re-calculate the entire earned leave accumulated in the EL account of the petitioner as per law and accordingly pay the entire earned leave amount within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order; failing which the petitioner shall also be entitled for 7% interest from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment.
Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands closed.