Case Law Details
Jagdish Prasad Saini Vs State of Rajasthan (Supreme Court of India)
Conclusion: Since the expression ‘salary’ included benefit of leave encashment which was nothing but salary for the unavailed leave to the credit of the employee, therefore, the condition that carry forward of balance privilege leave, was barred and requiring employees to seek encashment from their previous employer was an arbitrary and unconscionable condition.
Held: Assessee was appointed against sanctioned posts by a senior secondary school in 1993.High Court opined that neither gratuity nor leave encashment was covered by the expression “salary”, even under Rule 10 of the 2010 Rules or under the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition Grant-In-Aid and Service Conditions, Etc.) Rules, 1993 (hereafter, “1993 Rules”). Assessee had therefore approached the Supreme court. It was contended that the expression “salary” included both components, i.e., gratuity, as well as leave and under Rule 5 of the 2010 Rules, employees were entitled to leave encashment and gratuity benefits from private institutions. It was held that Rule 5(viii), carry forward of existing privilege leave was denied; likewise, the period of service in aided institutions was not to be reckoned for the purpose of gratuity under Rule 5(ix). Every employee had to furnish an undertaking in the prescribed form to accept the terms and conditions. Ordinarily no public employer could be faulted in imposing pre-conditions before it recruited an employee. However, such conditions could not be arbitrary, or so onerous as to be unconscionable. In the opinion of the court, the condition in clause (viii) of Rule 5 i.e., carry forward of balance privilege leave, was barred and requiring employees to seek encashment from their previous employer, i.e., aided institutions, was an arbitrary and unconscionable condition, which could not be enforced. With respect to leave encashment, the State and the respondent were liable to pay the appellants, in the ratio of 70:30 respectively. The respondent State shall determine the extent of entitlement of each appellant, and communicate the extent of amount payable by the management establishment to assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Special leave granted. With consent of counsel for the parties, the appeal was heard finally. The appeal is directed against a judgment and order of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench,1 dismissing the appellant’s application, seeking enforcement of this court’s previous judgment.2
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
