Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Direction to Refund Study Leave Salary and Confirms Entitlement to Senior Scale for College Lecturer
Case Name: State of Haryana and Others vs. Reeta Chadha & Reeta Chadha vs. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 20 November 2025
Citation: RSA-3070-2005 & RSA-3335-2005
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed both Regular Second Appeals and affirmed the judgment of the First Appellate Court directing recovery of salary paid for the lecturer’s uncompleted Ph.D. study leave while simultaneously confirming her entitlement to senior scale benefits. The Court held that the lecturer had executed a clear undertaking at the time of availing study leave, binding her to refund salary if she failed to complete the Ph.D. within the sanctioned period. The Court further held that once the competent authority had granted her senior scale, the college was bound to release the consequential salary and arrears. No legal infirmity was found in the appellate court’s decision modifying the trial court’s decree.
Summary: The dispute involved two linked appeals arising from the employment of a physics lecturer appointed in 1976 at Bhagat Phool Singh Memorial Girls’ College. She was granted three years of study leave to pursue a Ph.D. but could not complete the degree due to illness and later resumed duty. The institution ordered recovery of salary paid during the study leave and began monthly deductions. She challenged the recovery order, asserting that there was no condition requiring repayment. She also claimed entitlement to senior scale and other consequential service benefits.
The trial court rejected her suit. On appeal, the First Appellate Court partly allowed her claim: it upheld the recovery of study-leave salary based on University rules and her written undertaking, but allowed her claim to senior scale since the competent authority had already approved it.
In the second appeals before the High Court, the State argued that she was not entitled to senior scale; the lecturer argued that salary recovery was illegal. The High Court held that the University rules expressly required refund where the study programme was not completed, and the lecturer’s own written consent for recovery reinforced this obligation. Simultaneously, the Court found that senior scale was wrongly withheld since it had been duly sanctioned by the competent authority; therefore, the appellate court rightly directed release of benefits.
Decision: Both appeals were dismissed. The High Court upheld the recovery of study-leave salary, confirmed the lecturer’s entitlement to senior scale with arrears, and found no error in the First Appellate Court’s judgment.