Sh. Sant Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1457 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                  CWPOA No. 7712 of 2019




                                                                      .
                                                  Decided on: 01.03.2021.





      Sh. Sant Ram                                                ....Petitioner.

                   Versus





      State of Himachal Pradesh and others                        ...Respondents.
      Coram
      The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
      Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes





      For the petitioner          :       Mr. Devender Sharma, Advocate
                                          vice Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate.

      For the respondents         :
                               M/s Sumesh Raj, Dinesh Thakur
                   r           and Sanjeev Sood, Additional
                               Advocate Generals with Ms. Divya

                               Sood, Deputy Advocate General.
      Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

There is a very limited issue involved in the

present writ petition. The petitioner, who was serving as a

Class-IV employee with the respondent-department, was

earlier retired at the age of 58 years. Feeling aggrieved by the

fact that he was retired at the age of 58 years, he approached

this Court by way of CWP No. 1693 of 2010, titled as Sant

Ram vs. State of H.P. and others, with the prayer that, as the

petitioner was serving in the Forest Department of the

Government of Himachal Pradesh as a Class-IV employee,

therefore, he should be superannuated at the age of 60 years

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

and not at the age of 58 years as his services stood

regularized in the year 2010 retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.2000.

.

Said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide judgment

dated 27.10.2010 in the following terms:-

"The petitioner approached this Court

when he was sought to be superannuated on

attainment of age of 58 years on the ground that

his regularization is after 2001. During the

pendency of the Writ Petition, it is seen that the

department has regularized the services of the

petitioner retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.2000.

Order dated 20.07.2010, is taken on record.

Therefore, in any case, the petitioner can be

continued upto the age of 60 years. Accordingly,

the writ petition is allowed as above."

2. Now the surviving grievance of the petitioner is

that though he served the respondent-department till the age

of 60 years, yet leave encashment, to which he was entitled to

in lieu of serving till the age of 60 years, has not been paid to

him and the same was paid only till the age of 58 years. It is

in this background that this writ petition has been filed with

the prayer that the respondents be directed to release the

differential amount of leave encashment, i.e. `11,505/- with

interest thereon @ 12% per annum on account of delay in

.

release of the said amount.

3. The petition is being opposed by the respondent-

State inter alia on the ground that it was after his having

retired at the age of 58 years that petitioner approached the

Court by way of earlier writ petition and as all retiral benefits,

including leave encashment stood duly paid to him when

petitioner was superannuated at the age of 58 years and as

the petitioner did not refund the said amount to the

department, therefore, if he insists to be paid difference of

leave encashment on having retired from service at the age of

60 years on account of judgment passed by this Court, then

the petitioner be directed to pay to the government the

interest on the amount of leave encashment which stood paid

to him when he was earlier retired at the age of 58 years.

4. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as

well as learned Additional Advocate General and I have gone

through the pleadings as also the record of the case.

5. Annexure A-5, which is an office order passed by

the Divisional Forest Officer, Karsog Forest Division,

demonstrates that earlier the leave encashment which was

paid to the petitioner on his superannuation at the age of 58

years was `95098/-. As per the same order, leave

.

encashment, as was admissible to the petitioner on

retirement at the age of 60 years, was `1,06,603/-. The

balance leave encashment which was reflected in this order,

as payable to the petitioner, was `11,505/-.

6. As it is not in dispute that the petition filed by the

petitioner before this Court feeling aggrieved by the act of the

State Government of retiring him at the age of 58 years, was

allowed by this Court in his favour, therefore, now for all

intents and purposes, the petitioner stood retired from service

of the respondent-department at the age of 60 years. That

being the case, when the difference in leave encashment is of

a meager amount of `11,505/- and as the petitioner happens

to be a Class-IV employees, in the considered view of this

Court, it will be in the interest of justice, in case, this petition

is disposed of with the direction that the balance amount of

leave encashment amounting to `11,505/- be paid to the

petitioner, without insisting upon him to pay interest as

demanded by the State.

7. The contention raised by learned Additional

Advocate General that this amount can be paid only if the

petitioner pays interest on the amount of leave encashment

which was earlier released in his favour while retiring him at

.

the age of 58 years is without merit because there is nothing

on record to demonstrate that after the petition of the

petitioner to the effect that he should be retired at the age of

60 years, was allowed by this Court, any such demand was

raised by the State from the petitioner. Even otherwise, the

leave encashment earlier paid to the petitioner was so paid to

him by taking into consideration the fact that he was to

superannuate at the age of 58 years and now only balance of

two additional years has to be paid to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed with the

direction that balance differential amount of `11,505/- of

leave encashment shall be paid to the petitioner by the

respondent-department within a period of three months from

today. It is directed that in case balance amount is paid to the

petitioner by the respondent-department within the time

granted by the Court, then respondent-department shall not

be liable to pay interest thereupon, however, in case balance

amount is not paid to the petitioner within the said time

frame, then respondent-department shall be liable to pay

simple interest thereupon at the rate of 6% per annum from

the date of this decision.

.

The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so

also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

                                          (Ajay Mohan Goel)
    March 01, 2021                                 Judge
       (narender)




                       r        to