HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 2001933 of 2008 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. (C. M. Application No.IA/15 of 2025) This is an application for recall of the order dated 12.09.2025, which has been filed within time. Since the writ petition is of the year 2008, we had insisted that the matter be argued by learned counsel for the petitioner on its merits, and we recalled our order dated 12.09.2025 dismissing the writ petition for want of prosecution accordingly. The application for recall is allowed and the writ petition is restored to its original number. Order on Memo of Writ Petition Heard Shri Shubham Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 03.11.2007 passed by respondent no.3 and the order dated 06.06.2008 passed by respondent no.1. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus to be issued to the respondents to allow leave encashment to the petitioner according to the Old Leave Rules. If such prayer is granted, the petitioner will be able to avail earned leave of 204 days. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : P.C. Agarwal, A.K.Gupta, Abhishek Singh, Anand Kanaujia, Mohak Srivastava, Rajesh Tewari, Sharad Bhatnagar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C S C, Alok Mathur, Shobit Mohan, Shubham Tripathi Prof. V.K. Puri Vijai Kumar Puri S/O Dr. B.N. Puri .....Petitioner(s) Chancellor Of Universities C.S.Maharaj Medical University And .....Respondent(s) It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed to the post of Lecturer on 31.03.1979. He was promoted to the post of Reader in 1983 and thereafter to the post of Professor in 1988. He retired on 13.06.2008 on attaining the age of 62 years. He was subsequently re-employed as Professor in the Department of Cardiology on 01.07.2008. He continued for a period of two years as Professor of Cardiology w.e.f. 01.07.2008 to 30.06.2010. He had made an application for leave encashment of his total 204 days of earned leave. King George Medical College was taken over by the State Government on 18.07.1981 and remained under the control of the State Government. The petitioner was informed by a letter dated 06.06.2007 that he would be retiring in the academic session 2007–2008 and the petitioner requested the Vice-Chancellor to allow him to avail earned leave, which had accumulated to 204 days. The petitioner's representation/application was not considered instead, it was kept pending. The Registrar of K.G.M.U. informed the petitioner that new leave rules had come into operation as promulgated in 1975. The petitioner's application was rejected by means of the order dated 03.11.2007 by the Registrar. The petitioner filed an appeal/representation against such order, which was also rejected by the Chancellor, His Excellency, Government of U.P. on 06.06.2008. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the petitioner came into service, a Government Order was issued in 1995 which required teachers employed by K.G.M.C. to give their options. Since other teachers had been given an option to choose either the old leave rules or the new leave rules and the petitioner was not given such an option, it amounts to discrimination. We have gone through the order dated 03.11.2007. The Registrar has referred to the First Statutes of Lucknow University, which were applicable to Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj Medical University and paragraph no.16.22(Ka) thereof clearly provides that teachers employed before the coming into operation of the First Statutes would be given an option either to retain the earlier prevalent leave rules or to be governed by the new leave rules. Such option had to be given latest by 30.09.1997 and such option would be treated as final. The petitioner was appointed in the Cardiology Department of the University on 31.03.1979 and therefore, the First Statutes WRIA No. 2001933 of 2008 2 of the University are applicable to him automatically and the new leave rules shall apply in his case. No doubt, a notice was issued by the Principal of K.G.M.C. on 28.04.1995 directing teachers who were appointed earlier than the enforcement of the First Statutes of the University in 1975 to give their option to be governed either by the old leave rules or the new leave rules. Such notice dated 28.04.1995 was not meant for the petitioner. The petitioner, having been appointed after the new leave rules came into operation in 1975, was therefore not included in the list of teachers submitted on 10.05.1995 who had opted for the old leave rules to be applicable to them. The petitioner, being dissatisfied by the information/letter/order of the Registrar, approached the Chancellor by means of a representation. The Chancellor, having considered the representation, passed an order on 06.06.2008 wherein it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner was appointed on 31.03.1979 i.e. after the First Statutes of the University in 1975, which are applicable. The First Statutes relate to new leave rules being applicable to all teachers similarly situated as the petitioner. The notice issued by the Principal was not meant for the petitioner. The Principal of the College was, in fact, not authorized to issue any such notice, as the new leave rules had been in operation since 1975 and there was no reason to ask for options from teachers after 18 years of come into operation of such new rules. We have gone through the order passed by the Chancellor and we find no factual or legal infirmity in the same. Since the old leave rules are applicable only to teachers who were appointed before 1975, any option given by the petitioner after his appointment in 1979 would have no meaning at all. The writ petition stands dismissed. December 11, 2025 Mahesh WRIA No. 2001933 of 2008 3 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench