S.K. Sharma vs State of H.P. and Others

Surjit Singh, J.—Petitioner was employed as Principal of Shri Vishnu Sanatan Dharam College, Bhatoli, District Una in the year 2006, when, vide Notification dated 14.9.2006, Government took over that college along with its staff. That notification was challenged by the Management of the College by filing a writ petition in this Court. During the pendency of that writ petition, Petitioner attained the age of 58 years. Since the age of retirement of Principals/Teachers in Government colleges is 58 years, Petitioner was retired, vide notification dated 28.11.2006, copy Annexure P-7, w.e.f. 30.11.2006. After his retirement, notification dated 14.9.2006, regarding taking over of the college was quashed by this Court, vide order, copy Annexure P-5, and the result of quashing of that notification was that the college lost the status of Government College and again became a Private College. However, the college was aided by the Government and its Principal and Teachers were paid salary to the extent of 95%, out of the grant-in-aid given by the Government. After the quashing of the notification, regarding taking over of the College, Petitioner filed present petition on 27.3.2009, seeking issuance of following directions:

(a) Respondents be directed to treat the Petitioner as continuing in service upto the age of 60 years and rather beyond that till the end of academic year during which he attained the age of 60 years, i.e. upto 30.6.2009;

(b) Issuance of direction to the Respondents to pay gratuity and leave encashment, together with interest.

Respondents do not deny that the college was taken over and thereafter this Court, in a writ petition filed by the Management of the College, quashed the notification, regarding taking over of the college. Also, it is not denied that had the college not been taken over, Petitioner would have continued in service of the Management of the College upto the age of 60 years or till the end of academic session, during which he attained such age, whichever was later. It is also not in dispute that leave encashment and gratuity have not been paid to the Petitioner. However, State and Respondent No. 2 deny their liability to pay the same to the Petitioner.

Questions raised by the Petitioner in the present writ petition and the reliefs claimed by him, based on answers to such questions, were the subject matter of another writ petition, i.e. Jagdev Katoch v. State of H.P. and Ors. decided on 20.6.2008, by a single Bench of this Court. In the said case, it has been held that the State is under obligation to provide funds for payment of gratuity and leave encashment to the Management of Private Colleges, aided by the Government. Also, it has been held that the age of retirement of the teachers and principals of Government aided private educational institutions is 60 years.

In view of the aforesaid judgment, which is stated to have been upheld by a Division Bench in Letter Patent Appeal, the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that Respondents No. 1 and 2 shall release sufficient funds to the Management of the College, i.e. Respondent No. 3, to enable it to pay gratuity and leave encashment to the Petitioner, together with interest @ 6% per annum, and while calculating the amount of gratuity and leave encashment, Petitioner shall be deemed to have continued to serve the College upto the age of 60 years or say upto 30.11.2008. He shall also be paid arrears of salary upto 30.11.2008. Order be complied with within three months.

Writ petition stands disposed of.