K.L.E. SOCIETY Vs. K.S.SHANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the defendants under Sec. 96 of CPC, challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 31/1/2006 in OS No.360/2002 on the file of Principal Civil Judge Senior Division, Belgaum, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in part.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

(3.) Facts of the case in nutshell are that, it is the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that the plaintiff is an employee of the defendants-educational institution, having been appointed as a Lecturer in Bacteriology of Pathology Department of defendant No.2-college run by the defendant No.1-Society. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff has joined her duties on 1/7/1966 with the pay-scale of Rs.350.0025-500-30-800+NPA of Rs.75.00 per month and dearness allowance of Rs.81.00 on par with the Government Servant. During the course of her service, the plaintiff was promoted as Asst. Professor of Microbiology of defendant No.2- College. The plaintiff attained the age of superannuation on 31/1/2000. It is further stated in the plaint that during the course of the service of the plaintiff with the defendant No.2- College, the salary was paid as per the Government Servant and also the plaintiff was permitted to entitle for 15 days casual leave and one month earned leave every year, so also medical leave etc., which is permissible to the State Government employees also. It is also stated in the plaint that the State Government has periodically enhanced the dearness allowance to its employees, however, same was denied to the plaintiff by the defendant-Institution. It is also contended in the plaint that the plaintiff had earned leave to her credit and same was surrendered at the time of attaining superannuation however, the said benefit of earned leave encashment was denied to the plaintiff by the defendant-Institution. It is also stated in the plaint that the plaintiff has been denied benefit of HRA and CCA on par with the State Government Employees. The plaintiff made a claim for arrears of aforementioned benefits and same was rejected by the defendant-Institution at the time of retirement of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has preferred O.S.No.360/2002 against the defendant-Institution, seeking relief of recovery of money as the plaintiff is entitled for difference of Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, Earned Leave and City Compensatory Allowance on par with the Government employees.