VIMLA DEVI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the first three writ petitions the petitioners have made exactly identical claims. They have prayed for issue of a direction to the respondents to release the cash payment equivalent to the amount of unutilised half-pay leave lying at the credit of the petitioners at the time of retirement and also for declaring rule 8.21 as ultra virus to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In the last mentioned writ petition an additional prayer has been made to strike down the cut off date of 1.1.1990 specified in order Annexure P-1 for grant of benefit of cash payment in lieu of the earned leave to the employees of the departments.

(2.) A look at the averments made in writ petitions shows that the petitioners have retired from service while holding the posts of Headmasters/Teachers in various schools under the control of the Education Department of the Government of Punjab. Petitioners have claimed that in terms of rule 8.21 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I, they are entitled to encash the unutilised earned leave lying at their credit or the half-pay leave due to them at the time of their retirement, and that the respondents have acted unlawfully in depriving them of the benefit of cash payment in lieu of the half-pay leave due to their credit. In C.W.P. No. 4749 of 1993 it has also been pleaded that up to 1990 the employees of the Education Department were not given the benefit of leave encashment but vide notification Annexure P. 1 dated 8.3.1990 the Government has extended the benefit of cash payment to the employees of the vacation departments as well. The grievance of the petitioners is that the benefit of cash payment to the employees of the vacation departments in lieu of the unutilised leave has been confined to the staff retiring with effect 1.1.1990 onwards and those who stood retired prior to 1.1.1990 have been deprived of this benefit.

(3.) The first argument of Shri Ashok Sharma Nabhewala is that rule 8.116 read with rules 8.112 and 8.21 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I, cannot make any distinction between the employees belonging to different departments of the Government and, therefore, the discrimination brought about between the employees of the vacation departments and other departments is per se arbitrary, irrational and unconstitutional. The learned counsel argued that the employees of the vacation departments are as much Government servants as are the employees of the other departments and, therefore, the denial of benefit of cash payment to the employees of the vacation departments is contrary to the equality clause enshrined in the Constitution. The learned counsel strenuously argued that the difference brought about between the employees of the Education Department and of other departments does not have any rational relation with the object of grant of benefit of cash payment in lieu of the unutilised leave. The learned counsel also challenged the action of the Government in not giving the benefit of cash payment in lieu of the half-pay leave lying at the credit of the petitioners on the date of their superannuation.