MARUTI JAGANNATH AUDI Vs. GOA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has prayed for a declaration that he is entitled to encash earned leave for 240 days and a direction to respondent No. 1 to pay him the balance of the earned leave of 199 days together with together with interest @ Rs. 12 % p. a. from 01. 06. 1997 till payment. He has also prayed for declaration that the Statue No. SSB1 (x) (existing Statue S. 115. 12) regarding vacation salary applicable to university as illegal and that the University teachers are entitled for vacation salary as applicable to the college teachers.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that he has rendered service from 16. 6. 1970 to 15. 6. 1973 at Smt. Parvatibai Chowgule Cultural foundation's College, Margao and from 16. 6. 1973 to 30. 04. 1997 he was serving as a Lecturer in the Centre of Post Graduate Instruction and research (CPIR) of Goa University. According to him, his total earned leave comes to 324 days and he is entitled to earned leave under the recast Statute SSB-1 (xi) (B) (II) which does not permit accumulation of earned leave beyond 240 days. He is, therefore, entitled to encash earned leave for a period of 240 days. The respondents have admitted that the petitioner is entitled to earned leave for a period of 41 days and state that they have paid that amount to him.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the recast Statute SSB-1 (xi) (B) (II) has come into existence from 9. 12. 2000. Before this Statute, s. 115. 13 (2) was in force from the year 1993. According to the respondents, the petitioner is entitled to have earned leave only corresponding to 41 days since those number of days were found to his credit from the date of coming into force of the Statute in 1993 till the date of retirement on 1. 5. 97. According to Mr. Ramani, the learned counsel for petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to have earned leave computed for the actual service rendered by him in terms of the Statute from 1970. The petitioner having been absorbed in the Goa University in the year 1985, the petitioner is entitled to have earned leave for the entire period from 1970 and at any rate from 1985. We find that, there is no record of the petitioner's earned leave produced before the Court. That apart, the petitioner's contention is not correct in view of the admitted position that the Statute which confers entitlement of a university teacher to earned leave, came into force in the year 1993. Prior to that there was no provision in the conditions of service which entitled a University teacher to earned leave. The term actual service in the Statute refers to actual service rendered by a teacher after the statute came into force. That term cannot have the effect of making the statute retrospective and conferring entitlement to commute earned leave for a period prior to its existence. It is well known that earned leave involves a financial burden on the employer and there must be a specific provision in that regard binding the employer. It would not be possible to cast a burden on earlier employers who had not made any provision for paying earned leave to these employees.