IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
CWPOA No. 83 of 2020
th
Decided on 28 March, 2024
Anil Kumar Kohli
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
…Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
1
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner: Mr. V.B. Verma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General,
with Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy
Advocate General, for respondents
No.1 and 2.
Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur, Advocate,
for respondent No.3
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter
alia, prayed for the following reliefs:
i) “The respondents may be directed to make the
payments towards gratuity and leave
encashment to the petitioner.
ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to
release the amount of leave encashment to the
petitioner with interest @18% per annum
forthwith.”
2
2. When the case was listed on 26.03.2024, the
following order was passed:-
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is aggrieved by the non-
release of leave encashment in his favour. He
further submits that the issue as to who has to
pay the leave encashment to the petitioner is no
more res-integra as it stands settled by this Court
in CWP No. 60 of 2006, titled as Jagdev Katoch
vs. State of H.P. and others, dated 20.06.2008,
read alongwith judgment passed in Review
Petition No. 22 of 2020, titled as Maharaja
Lakshman Sen Memorial College versus State of
H.P. and others, decided on 10.09.2020, that the
liability to pay the leave encashment is that of the
State to the extent of 95% and of the private
institution is to the extent of 5%. Learned
Counsel further submits that above cited
judgments stand implemented by the
respondents even qua other colleagues of the
petitioners.
Learned Deputy Advocate General submits
that he may be granted some time to have
instructions in the matter.
3
As prayed for, list on 28.03.2024.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that
some more time be granted to have instructions in the matter.
4. This is opposed to by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, who submits that the prayer being
made by the petitioner in the petition is squarely covered not
only in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Non-Government
Affiliated Colleges Grant-in-Aid Rules 1994, but also by the
order dated 05.09.2022, that has been passed in Review
Petition No.22 of 2020 read with order dated 10.09.2020,
passed in Review Petition No.22 of 2020, in which, it has been
settled that as far as the leave encashment is concerned, the
liability of the State is to the extent of 95% and that of the
private institution is to the extent of 5%.
5. A perusal of Rule, 6 of the Himachal Pradesh Non-
Government Affiliated Colleges Grant-in-Aid Rules 1994
demonstrates that Grant-in-Aid is inclusive of the teaching as
well as non-teaching posts approved by the Government. It is
not the case of the respondent that the petitioner was serving
against a teaching post in the private institution, which was not
4
approved by the Government. Findings returned in Review
Petition could not be denied by the respondents. That being so,
petitioner is held entitled for the relief prayed for, therefore, in
this view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by
directing the respondents to pay admissible leave encashment
to the petitioner, 95% of which shall be borne by the State and
5% by the private institution. In case the due and admissible
amount is not paid within the said period, the same shall entail
interest @6% per annum from the date of judgment. Pending
miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
March 28, 2024
(Vinod)