Sukh Ram vs The Addl. Chief Secretary And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 788 P&H

CWP-19387-2020                                               1

                HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                         CHANDIGARH

109                                            CWP-19387-2020
                                               Date of decision:25.02.2021

Sukh Ram
                                                             ... Petitioner

                           Versus

The Additional Chief Secretary and Financial Commissioner and others

                                                             ... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA

Present:     Mr.Dinesh Ghai, Advocate
             for the petitioner

             Mr.R.K.S.Brar, Additional Advocate General, Haryana

             (The proceedings were conducted through video
             conferencing, as per instructions.)

                        *****
G .S. Sandhawalia , J. (Oral)

The petitioner seeks the benefit of cash salary equivalent to the

salary of balance 167 days out of total of 467 days of unutilized earned leave

outstanding to the credit of the petitioner and the arrears of salary in lieu of 7th

Pay Commission dated 01.01.2016 and the arrears of DA instalment of July

2019 along with interest. Also quashing of order dated 01.06.2020 (Annexure

P-1), whereby he has been granted salary of 300 days unutilized earned leave,

whereas 467 days earned leave was actually outstanding on the date of his

retirement on 29.02.2020 is prayed for.

The legal notice whereby the said claim of the balance 167 days

1 of 3

of unutilized earned leave was claimed, had been rejected vide order dated

08.10.2020 (Annexure P-3), which is also a subject matter of challenge in

which the respondents have stated that the legal notice had been considered

and rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently relied upon

two judgments passed by this Court in CWP-13702-2014, "Jaipal Phogat and

another vs. State of Haryana and others", (Annexure P-4) and CWP-25427-

2013, "Kulbir Singh vs. State of Haryana and others" both decided on

05.10.2016, to submit that the leave beyond 300 days is also encashable as

such.

On 16.11.2020, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to

show the regulation or notification he was relying upon for his claim beyond

300 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to produce any such

regulation in respect of said claim, which would necessarily be the basis for

issuance of a writ of mandamus. Neither he has referred to the Rules which

would show that earned leave beyond 300 days is encashable. In such

circumstances, the petition is not liable to be entertained.

A close reading of the judgments relied upon by learned counsel

for the petitioner would also go to show that co-ordinate Bench was dealing

with the cases where the employees had accumulated unutilized leave

beyond 300 days and the same had been reduced and fixed for 240 days and

2 of 3

the said action was held to be unjustified and therefore the said judgments

would be of no assistance to the present petition. Accordingly, there is no

merit in the present case and the same is dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second prayer

for claims of his arrears of salary in lieu of 7th Pay Commission was never put

forth in the legal notice and therefore prays that the said prayer be left open to

the petitioner by filing an appropriate representation. Accordingly, the liberty

is granted to the petitioner to press that claim with the respondents.

                                              (G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
25.02.2021                                          JUDGE
neenu



Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable:        Yes/No




                                    3 of 3