1 CWP-22766-2023 & two connected matters IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 243(3 cases) Date of Decision: 02.09.2026 1. CWP-22766-2023 AMAR SINGH MALHOTRA @ A.S MALHOTRA AND OTHERS .....Petitioners VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ….Respondents 2. CWP-1703-2024 UDEY VIR SINGH @ U.V SINGH AND OTHERS .....Petitioners VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ….Respondents 3. CWP-24725-2023 RANDHIR SINGH HOODA AND OTHERS .....Petitioners VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. K.L Arora, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-22766- 2023. Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-24725- 2023. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.09.10 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CWP-22766-2023 & two connected matters Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-1703-2024. Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. With the consent of both the parties, the aforementioned writ petitions are taken up together and are being decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP-22766-2023. 2. This Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing impugned order dated 21.07.2023 (Annexure P-9) which has withdrawn the benefits of leave encashment for 36 days of strike period, already granted to them. Further directing respondents to treat the strike period of 36 days from 04.08.1987 to 08.09.1987 as duty period and release the leave encashment for these 36 days period of strike of petitioners at par with retirees of Govt. Colleges. Lastly praying for the arrears of salary be ordered to be paid to petitioners along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date these benefits of leave encashment were given to Govt. College retirees. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, submits that the petitioners are retired Lecturers/teachers who had served in various Government-aided colleges in the State of Haryana and had retired on different dates. The particulars of the petitioners, including their respective dates of joining and retirement, have been placed on record as Annexure PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.09.10 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CWP-22766-2023 & two connected matters P-1. It is submitted that in the year 1987, the Lecturers/teaching staff of Government Colleges, Government-aided Colleges and Universities in the State of Haryana had gone on a general strike for a period of 36 days, from 04.08.1987 to 08.09.1987. In respect of the teachers serving in Government Colleges and Universities, the said period was treated as duty period and the consequential benefit of leave encashment was extended to them. 4. Learned counsel further submits that, subsequently, vide letter dated 29.10.2002 (Annexure P-11), the position with regard to the strike period was clarified by the Higher Education Commissioner, Haryana. The said communication referred to the earlier decision dated 13.05.2002 whereby the strike period was treated as leave of the kind due and further provided for the cases of teachers who had already retired or died before the said date. It is further submitted that the State Government, vide communication dated 14.08.2018 (Annexure P-10), specifically decided, in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP-12179-2011, Dr. K.L. Johar and others versus State of Haryana and others, decided on 10.11.2016, to extend the benefit of earned leave encashment to all teaching and non-teaching employees of Government-aided private colleges at par with their counterparts working in Government Colleges. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite the aforesaid position, the petitioners, who are retirees of Government-aided colleges, continued to be deprived of leave encashment for the aforesaid 36 days. The petitioners and the Federation representing them submitted PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.09.10 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CWP-22766-2023 & two connected matters various representations before the competent authorities. Ultimately, after consideration of the matter, the Director of Higher Education, Haryana issued communication dated 30.08.2022 (Annexure P-6). Vide the aforesaid communication, it was specifically informed that the retired officers/officials of Government-aided colleges who had participated in the strike from 04.08.1987 to 08.09.1987, and whose earned leave had earlier been sanctioned, would have the said period treated as duty period at par with the retired officers/officials of Government Colleges. It was further decided to grant them leave encashment for the said 36 days. The Principals of the concerned colleges were directed to forward complete cases to the Directorate for taking further necessary action. 6. It is submitted that thereafter, vide communication dated 02.06.2023 (Annexure P-7), the respondents directed the Principals of Government-aided colleges not to disburse any payment towards leave encashment of 36 days of the strike period and fresh leave encashment till further orders. The Federation representing the petitioners thereafter submitted representation dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure P-8) requesting the authorities to disclose the reasons for withholding the aforesaid benefit. 7. Learned counsel submits that, instead of considering the representation, the Director of Higher Education passed the impugned order dated 21.07.2023 (Annexure P-9), whereby the earlier communication dated 30.08.2022 (Annexure P-6) was withdrawn and the strike period from 04.08.1987 to 08.09.1987 was again directed to be treated as leave of the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.09.10 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 CWP-22766-2023 & two connected matters kind due. The impugned order further directed recovery of the amount in case any payment had already been released to any pensioner. 7.1 It is argued that the impugned order is arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the earlier conscious decision of the competent authority. It is also submitted that the impugned order does not deal with the judgment of this Court in Dr. K.L. Johar (supra) or the subsequent Government instructions dated 14.08.2018, whereby parity in the matter of leave encashment between Government-aided colleges and Government Colleges had already been recognized. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the communication dated 30.08.2022 (Annexure P-6) was issued inadvertently. The matter had already been considered by the Government and, vide instructions dated 13.05.2002 (Annexure R-II), it had been decided to treat the strike period as leave of the kind due. Reliance has also been placed upon the Finance Department instructions dated 19.09.2002 (Annexure R- III). 8.1 It is submitted that after examining the aforesaid instructions, the answering respondent realized the inadvertent mistake committed while issuing the communication dated 30.08.2022 and, accordingly, withdrew the same vide order dated 21.07.2023. It is contended that the impugned order was passed in compliance with the Government instructions and, therefore, no interference is called for. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.09.10 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 CWP-22766-2023 & two connected matters OBSERVATIONS 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings, documents placed on record and the judgments relied upon. 10. The controversy, in essence, is whether the petitioners, being retired employees of Government-aided colleges, can be denied the benefit of leave encashment for the 36-day strike period from 04.08.1987 to 08.09.1987, after the competent authority had consciously extended the said benefit to them vide communication dated 30.08.2022, particularly when the Government had already recognized parity between employees of Government-aided colleges and their counterparts in Government Colleges in the matter of leave encashment. 11. Learned State counsel, however, could not controvert the factual position that the benefit of leave encashment for the aforesaid 36 days had been extended to teachers serving in Government Colleges and Universities and that the communication dated 30.08.2022 had specifically extended the same benefit to the retired employees of Government-aided colleges. The written statement itself acknowledges that the communication dated 30.08.2022 had treated the said period as duty period, though the respondents subsequently withdrew the same on the basis of the earlier instructions. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.09.10 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 CWP-22766-2023 & two connected matters 12. The relevant chronology is not in dispute. The teachers of Government Colleges, Government-aided Colleges and Universities participated in the general strike for 36 days from 04.08.1987 to 08.09.1987. The record placed before this Court demonstrates that the benefit in respect of the said period had already been extended to teachers of Government Colleges and Universities. The petitioners, being retirees of Government- aided colleges, thereafter pursued their claim through various representations. 13. The claim of the petitioners ultimately culminated in the issuance of communication dated 30.08.2022 (Annexure P-6), whereby the competent authority specifically approved the treatment of the aforesaid period as duty period and decided to grant leave encashment for 36 days to the retired employees of Government-aided colleges. The language of the said communication leaves no ambiguity in this regard. 14. The subsequent withdrawal of the aforesaid benefit is sought to be justified solely on the basis of the instructions dated 13.05.2002 (Annexure R-II) and 19.09.2002 (Annexure R-III). It is true that the communication dated 13.05.2002 had provided for treating the strike period as leave of the kind due. However, the respondents themselves subsequently took a conscious decision in the year 2022 to extend the benefit to the retired employees of Government-aided colleges. The respondents have described the 30.08.2022 (Annexure P-6) decision as an inadvertent mistake. However, the material placed on record does not support such a conclusion. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.09.10 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 CWP-22766-2023 & two connected matters 15. The petitioners had been pursuing the matter for a considerable period of time. Their representations dated 28.01.2020 (Annexure P-2), 04.04.2021 (Annexure P-4) and 25.05.2022 (Annexure P-5) demonstrate that the issue had been specifically raised before the Directorate of Higher Education. The communication dated 30.08.2022 (Annexure P-6) was thus not shown to be a spontaneous or isolated administrative act passed without consideration of the claim. Rather, it followed repeated representations concerning the very benefit which had already been extended to similarly situated employees. 16. The controversy with regard to entitlement of employees of privately managed Government-aided colleges to leave encashment at par with their counterparts in Government institutions is no longer res integra. This Court, in Dr. Karan Singh Rathee and others versus State of Haryana and others, CWP No.3732 of 2001, decided on 20.08.2007, had held that the employees of privately managed Government-aided colleges are entitled to the benefit of gratuity and leave encashment at par with the Lecturers serving in Government Colleges. 17. The aforesaid view is also fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and another versus S.R. Higher Secondary School, Lachhmangarh and others, Civil Appeal No.9166 of 2003, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the entitlement of employees of aided educational institutions, emphasized that the provisions concerning service conditions of employees of aided PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.09.10 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 CWP-22766-2023 & two connected matters institutions are required to be construed so as to promote education and improve the service conditions of the teaching class. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there was no justification for denying to the employees of aided private educational institutions the benefit of leave encashment at par with employees of Government institutions. The said principle was thereafter noticed and applied by this Court in Dr. K.L. Johar (supra), wherein, after considering the earlier judgments including Dr. Karan Singh Rathee (supra) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan (supra), this Court held that the employees of privately managed Government-aided colleges are entitled to leave encashment at par with their counterparts working in Government Colleges. 18. Significantly, the aforesaid judicial pronouncements were thereafter given effect to by the State Government itself. Vide communication dated 14.08.2018 (Annexure P-10), issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Higher Education Department, Haryana, the State Government, specifically taking note of the judgment in Dr. K.L. Johar (supra), decided to grant the benefit of earned leave encashment to all teaching and non-teaching employees of Government-aided private colleges at par with their counterparts working in Government Colleges. 19. There is yet another aspect which cannot be overlooked. The communication dated 30.08.2022 (Annexure P-6) was subsequently withdrawn by the very department i.e. Director of Higher Education, Haryana, which had issued it. The impugned order dated 21.07.2023 PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.09.10 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10 CWP-22766-2023 & two connected matters proceeds on the basis that the earlier decision was an inadvertent mistake and that the instructions dated 13.05.2002 and 19.09.2002 continued to hold the field. 19.1 However, the impugned order does not consider the subsequent Government decision dated 14.08.2018 (Annexure P-10), which had specifically generalized the benefit of leave encashment to employees of Government-aided private colleges at par with employees of Government Colleges. It also does not deal with the basis on which the competent authority, after consideration of the representations of the petitioners, had consciously issued the order dated 30.08.2022 (Annexure P-6). 20. The administrative authority i.e. Director of Higher Education, Haryana, while withdrawing a benefit which had already been consciously extended to a defined class of retired employees, was required to furnish cogent and legally sustainable reasons for such withdrawal. The mere characterization of the earlier decision as an "inadvertent mistake" cannot, by itself, constitute a sufficient basis for depriving the petitioners of a benefit which is otherwise founded upon the principle of parity recognized by this Court and accepted by the State Government. 21. The principle laid down by the Privy Council in R.T. Rangachari v. Secretary of State, AIR 1937 Privy Council 27, also assumes relevance in this context. The principle is that where competent authorities have, after due consideration, arrived at a decision and such decision has been acted upon and brought into operation, the matter cannot ordinarily be PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.09.10 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11 CWP-22766-2023 & two connected matters reopened by a successor authority so as to arrive at an entirely different conclusion, unless there exists a lawful basis for such reconsideration. The said principle has also been noticed and applied in service jurisprudence. In the present case, no material has been placed before this Court to establish that the decision dated 30.08.2022 was vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, lack of jurisdiction or any other legally recognized ground warranting its abrupt withdrawal. 22. The claim of the petitioners is further fortified by the fact that similarly placed employees of Government Colleges and Universities have already been extended the benefit for the identical period of 36 days of strike. The petitioners had participated in the same general strike and the respondents have failed to disclose any intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved for denying the same benefit to the retirees of Government-aided colleges. The distinction sought to be created between the two classes is particularly difficult to sustain when the State Government itself had already recognized parity in the matter of leave encashment. 23. It is also relevant that the impugned order dated 21.07.2023 (Annexure P-9) directs recovery of the amount in cases where the benefit of leave encashment had already been released. Such direction has been issued without disclosing any individual circumstances attributable to the concerned retirees and without examining the effect of the subsequent policy decisions and judicial pronouncements governing the field. The direction of PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.09.10 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12 CWP-22766-2023 & two connected matters recovery, therefore, cannot independently survive once the very basis for withdrawal of the benefit is found unsustainable. CONCLUSION 24. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the impugned order dated 21.07.2023 (Annexure P-9), insofar as it withdraws the benefit of leave encashment for the 36-day strike period from the petitioners and directs recovery thereof, is unsustainable in law. 25. In view of the discussion hereinabove, all the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 21.07.2023 (Annexure P-9) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the period from 04.08.1987 to 08.09.1987, i.e. 36 days, as duty period for the purpose of leave encashment and to release to the petitioners the consequential benefit of leave encashment for 36 days, in terms of the communication dated 30.08.2022 (Annexure P-6). 26. In cases where the amount of leave encashment for the aforesaid 36 days has already been recovered pursuant to the impugned order, the same shall be restored to the concerned petitioner(s). 27. The consequential monetary benefits shall be calculated and released to the petitioners within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioners shall also be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the respective writ petition(s) till the date of actual payment. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.09.10 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 13 CWP-22766-2023 & two connected matters 28. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. 29. Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected case(s). 02.09.2026 (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) P.C. JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.09.10 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document