University Non-Teaching Staff Entitled to Leave Encashment Benefits Paralleling Government Employees Under Statutory Leave Rules.

The petitioners were appointed as Routine Grade Clerks in the office of the Registrar (Respondent No. 3) in 1978 and were later promoted to Senior Assistants

Upon their retirement in 2011 and 2012, they received all post-retiral benefits except leave encashment

Since 1974, the University had implemented State Government service rules for non-teaching staff in the absence of University-framed rules

Although the University Executive Council and Finance Committee approved the grant of 300 days of leave encashment in line with Government Orders dated 01.07.1999 and 03.07.2000, the State Government later directed a stay on such payments and recovery of amounts already paid, citing a lack of specific State approval

The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus for the payment of their leave encashment benefits

1. Whether the non-teaching staff of the University are entitled to leave encashment benefits as applicable to State Government employees of similar status

2. Whether the lack of specific prior approval from the State Government under Section 21 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, justifies the denial of leave encashment benefits

3. Whether a Government Order can override the provisions of the University Statutes regarding service conditions

Clause 36.01 of the First Statutes of the University, which stipulates that leave rules applicable to Government servants shall apply mutatis mutandis to employees of like status

The court relied on Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corp. v. Diamond & Gem Development Corp. Ltd. (2013) to interpret 'mutatis mutandis' as applying provisions with necessary changes in detail without altering their essential nature

Sections 21(3) and 21(4) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973

Rule 81(b) of the Fundamental Rules (Financial Handbook Vol. 2, Part 4), which provides for the encashment of surrendered leave

The court reasoned that Clause 36.01 of the Statutes—framed by the State under Section 50 of the Act—effectively incorporated the State’s leave rules into the service conditions of the University's non-teaching staff

It rejected the State's argument that leave encashment was not a "retiral benefit" under Section 33, clarifying instead that leave rules are distinct conditions of service

Regarding Section 21 of the Act, the court held that since the Statutes (which already have State approval) specifically apply the leave rules, no further "prior approval" for individual expenditure is required

The court applied the principle of legal hierarchy, ruling that the University Statutes occupy a higher pedestal than Government Orders; therefore, a conflicting Government Order cannot be used to deny benefits guaranteed by the Statutes

The court issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to extend the benefits of leave encashment in accordance with Rule 81(b) of the Fundamental Rules. The respondents were ordered to pass a specific order and disburse the due amounts within four months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment