Bhel Educational Management Board ... vs Bhel Shikshak Shikshnetter Karamchari ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 302 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Bhel Educational Management Board ... vs Bhel Shikshak Shikshnetter Karamchari ... on 13 May, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                               2025:UHC:3832-DB



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
               AT NAINITAL
              HON'BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
                HON'BLE MR. ASHISH NAITHANI, J

             SPECIAL APPEAL_No.133 of 2017
BHEL Educational Management Board (EMB) and another

                                                                    ...Appellant
                                   Versus

BHEL Shikshak Shikshnetter Karamchari Sangathan & others

                                                                 ...Respondents



Counsel for the appellant           :       Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned senior counsel
                                            assisted by Mr. Kanti Ram Sharma,
                                            learned counsel.

Counsel for State/2 and 3                   Mr. P.S. Bisht, learned DAG.



Counsel for respondent no.1                 Ms. Hemanti Shahi, learned counsel
                                            holding brief of Mr. H.S. Sharma,
                                            learned counsel.

JUDGMENT :

(PER HON'BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI. J) This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.03.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.1385 of 2011. The impugned judgment is extracted below for ready reference:-

"The petitioner was put on census duty. He has been denied encashment earned leave.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, Mr. Brajpal Singh, Ms. Asha Sinha and similarly situated 25 persons, as per list annexed with the rejoinder affidavit have been given encashment earned leave. There is arbitrariness in the action of the respondents, whereby the petitioner has been denied encashment earned leave, though, similarly situated persons have been given earned leave for discharging the similar

2025:UHC:3832-DB

duty i.e. census duty. Equals cannot be treated unequals.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant encashment earned leave to the petitioner at parity, as the persons mentioned hereinabove, within a period of six weeks from today."

2. BHEL Shikshak Shikshnetter Karamchari Sangathan (Respondent no.1 in this appeal) filed writ petition seeking following relief:-

"A. To issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 06-05-2011 passed by Respondent No 4 denying the petitioners the due Encashable Earned Leave (EEL) for the period of census duties performed by them during the summer vacation.

B. To issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the Respondent no. 4 to grant Encashable Earned Leave for the period of census duties performed by them during the summer vacation to the petitioner"

3. The description of respondent no.1 indicates that it is an association of teaching and non teaching employees serving in the Schools run by BHEL Educational Management Board. Such teaching and non teaching employees were assigned census duties for certain days in the month of May and June, 2010. They claimed Encasheable Earned Leave for the period of census duty. The competent authority in Educational Management Board sanctioned Encasheable Earned Leave (EL) to leave account of such teaching and non teaching employees, based on formula (No. of days x 3/5) as per Educational Management Board manual. Such employees filed writ petition through their association

2025:UHC:3832-DB

challenging the order dated 06.05.2011 by contending that they are entitled to Encasheable Earned Leave (EL). The writ petition was allowed by impugned judgment on the ground that as per list enclosed with rejoinder affidavit, 25 similarly situated persons were given Encasheable Earned Leave, therefore, denial of such benefit to members of petitioner association is arbitrary and discriminatory.

4. Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned senior counsel appearing for appellant submits that the document enclosed with rejoinder affidavit, relied by writ court for allowing the writ petition, do not support the case of writ petitioners. He submits that at the bottom of said document, it is clearly mentioned that Earned Leave was to be granted to teachers, who had performed invigilation duty and also the duty of evaluation of answer books in the board examination held in year 1994. Thus, he submits that parity claimed by writ petitioners with such teachers who had performed invigilation and evaluation duty during board examination, was misconceived however, learned writ court was mislead by writ petitioners for obtaining relief based on a document which had no relevance in the matter.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that petitioner could only have claimed parity with teaching/non teaching employees, if any, who were given Encasheable Earned Leave for census duties, however, as there was no such person who was given such benefit, therefore they claimed parity with teachers, who performed altogether different duty. Thus he

2025:UHC:3832-DB

submits that they were not entitled to any relief from the writ court and learned writ court erred in allowing their writ petition.

6. We find substance in the said submission made by learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant. The document referred by Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned senior counsel, is enclosed as Annexure no.5 to rejoinder affidavit, wherein, names of 25 persons are mentioned.

7. A perusal of said document reveals that teachers, who had performed extra duties during board examination, were considered for grant of Earned Leave, depending upon the numbers of days, they performed such duty. Thus, reliance placed by writ petitioner on the said document was misplaced as members of petitioner's association were not claiming Earned Leave for the duty of evaluation of answer books or for the duty of invigilation during board examination. From the order impugned in writ petition, it is revealed that non Encasheable Earned Leave was sanctioned to the leave account of members of petitioner association based on formula (No. of days x 3/5) for the census duty they performed. No provision of Rule, Regulation or Government Order was brought on record by writ petitioner in support of their claim for Encasheable Earned Leave for the period of census duty.

8. Since the benefit admissible as per their service conditions was given to the members of petitioner's association for the census duty performed by

2025:UHC:3832-DB

them, therefore, learned writ court was not justified in interfering with the decision taken by the competent authority.

9. As the writ petition was allowed only on the ground that other similarly situated persons named in the list enclosed with rejoinder affidavit were given Encasheable Earned Leave, and from perusal of said document it is revealed that the persons named in the said document were considered for grant of only Earned Leave for invigilation and evaluation duty during 1994 board examination, therefore, we are of the considered view that learned Single Judge was not justified in allowing the writ petition based on such document.

10. We accordingly allow the special appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated 20.03.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.1385 of 2011. No order as to costs.

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI. J.

ASHISH NAITHANI, J.

Dt:13th May, 2025 NR/