JUDGMENT : MANOJIT BHUYAN, J. 1. Primary issue for determination is as to whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner is entitled to cash equivalent of unutilised earned leave at his credit commencing from 01.01.1984 to 1995.The above date i.e. 01.01.1984 is the date when the school in question was provincialised and the year 1995 has reference to the Government Notification dated 15.06.1995, introducing entitlement to 10 (ten) days earned leave to Government servant serving in a Vacation Department. 2. Facts to be noticed are that the petitioner Khagendra Prasad Bharali joined service on 01.10.1967 as founder Headmaster of Pitambor Adarsha High School, Rangia, (now known as Hindi Vidyalaya High School, Rangia) and after having served well over 30 years, retired on 31.08.2003, on attaining the age of superannuation. The school in question was provincialised on 01.01.1984. In his capacity as the Headmaster, he was the Drawing and Disbursing Officer. His nature of duties was such requiring him to attend office regularly for preparing salary bills, maintaining cash book and acquaintance roll, making correspondences with concerned departments and ancillary duties. As a result he could not and did not avail any vacation during his service tenure. Referring to the Service Book (Annexure-6) it is shown that for the period from 1984 to 1995 the petitioner did not avail earned leave. Under the circumstances he claims entitlement to cash payments in lieu of his unutilised earned leave from the date of provincialisation of the school on 01.01.1984. 3. There is no dispute as regards the petitioner's entitlement to cash equivalent of earned leave that stood at his credit for the period from 1995 until his retirement in the year 2003. What is in dispute is in respect of the claimed benefit from 01.01.1984 to 1995. In this respect, reliance is placed in the Office Memorandum dated 19.07.1978 of the Finance Department Establishment (A) Branch, whereby decision had been taken that State Government servants may be paid cash equivalent of leave salary in respect of period of earned leave at their credit at the time of retirement on superannuation. The said Office Memorandum was made applicable to State Government servants retiring on superannuation on or after 19.07.1978. The said Office Memorandum was made applicable to State Government servants retiring on superannuation on or after 19.07.1978. This Office Memorandum of 19.07.1978 is made the edifice for claiming cash equivalent of unutilised earned leave that stood at the credit of the petitioner for the period from 01.01.1984 to 1995. 4. In the matter of cash payment in lieu of unutilised earned leave at credit on the date of superannuation of Government servants in Vacation Departments, the Government of Assam had issued Office Memorandums, time and again, limiting accumulation and encashment of unutilised earned leave for Government servants in the Vacation Departments, initially for a maximum of 80 days and thereafter to a maximum of 300 days. Alleging discrimination by a section of retired employees of Vacation Department, this Court settled the issue in the case of Sri Khagendra Nath Deka and ors. v. State of Assam and ors. reported in, 2011 5 GauLT 9 . This Court had set aside two Office Memorandums dated 21.02.2000 and 11.12.2006 and held that having regard to the Leave Rules and the Office Memorandum dated 19.07.1978, there can be no distinguishing factor between employees of the Vacation and Non-Vacation Departments and both categories can claim encashment benefits to the extent of leave credited in their accounts at the time of retirement. This Court also held that it was theoretically possible for an employee of the Vacation Department to accumulate leave to a maximum permissible 300 days and such benefit of leave encashment cannot be restricted to any lesser number of days than what is granted to an employee of the non-Vacation Department. 5. Xxx XXX XXX. 6. Turning to the issue in hand and taking a leaf out of the case in Khagendra Nath Deka (supra), it is seen that when cash payment in lieu of unutilised earned leave was first introduced through the Notification dated 19.07.1978, no distinction was made between employees of the Vacation and Non-Vacation Departments. The expression used therein is "State Government servants", which expression would normally cover Government employees serving under both kinds of establishments. The expression used therein is "State Government servants", which expression would normally cover Government employees serving under both kinds of establishments. As no specific provision was available for granting the benefit of unutilised earned leave to an employee in a Vacation Department, the Government of Assam by means of Notification dated 15.06.1995 notified substitution of Rule 12(a) of the Revised Leave Rules, 1934 (in short, the Rules, 1934) by prescribing that a Government servant serving in a Vacation Department shall be entitled to 10 (ten) days earned leave in lieu of 20 (twenty) days half-pay leave as admissible under Rule 13(a) (i) of the aforesaid Rules, 1934. The benefit was deemed to come into effect from the date of issue of the notification. 7. Having noticed the gamut of the Notification/Office Memorandum dated 19.07.1978 and that of the aforesaid Notification dated 15.06.1995, it is now to be seen whether the claim of the petitioner has force and whether relief prayed for can be granted. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Office Memorandum dated 19.07.1978 must be read conjointly with the provisions under the Revised Leave Rules, 1934. The concept of "earned leave" being significant in the instant case, therefore, it would be essential to understand the definition of "earned leave" within the meaning of the Rules, 1934. Earned Leave is defined in Rule 3(ii) to mean the leave earned as per provisions of Rule 9 thereof. Rule 9(1)(a)(i), which is relevant, prescribes that a Government servant who is serving in a department, other than a Vacation Department, shall be entitled to earned leave for 30 (thirty) days in a calendar year. Thus, the Rules, 1934 limited entitlement to earned leave only to Government servants serving in Non- Vacation Departments. The benefit of entitlement to earned leave in respect of employees of the Vacation Department for 10 (ten) days in a calendar year was only introduced vide the aforesaid Notification dated 15.06.1995, which came into effect on and from the date of issue of the said notification. Apparently, there was no specific concept of cash payment in lieu of unutilised earned leave to an employee of Vacation Department prior to issuance of the said Notification dated 15.06.1995. Apparently, there was no specific concept of cash payment in lieu of unutilised earned leave to an employee of Vacation Department prior to issuance of the said Notification dated 15.06.1995. This Court would also notice that following the judgment dated 02.06.2011 in Khagendra Nath Deka (supra), the Government of Assam in the Finance (Estt.-A) Department issued Office Memorandum dated 03.03.2012 granting the benefit of unutilised leave encashment to employees of Vacation Departments standing at their credit on the date of retirement on superannuation to the extent of permissible days as in force at the relevant period for the employees of the Non-Vacation Departments. In so far as calculation of earned leave of Government employees of Vacation Departments are concerned, the said Office Memorandum prescribed that it would remain the same at the rate of 10 (ten) days annually and that the accrual of the maximum limit of earned leave will be at par with the employees of the Non-Vacation Department. Thus, the Office Memorandum provided that while unutilised earned leave would be calculated at the 10 (ten) days annually, the same would be limited to a maximum of 300 days, as in the case of the employees of the Non- Vacation Department. 8. In Khagendra Nath Deka (supra), the predominant tenor is that cash benefit in lieu of unutilised earned leave in respect of employee of Vacation Department cannot be restricted to any lesser number of days but to a maximum permissible 300 days, as available to employees of Non-Vacation Department. Whether cash benefits would accrue to an employee of the Vacation Department at the rate of 10 (ten) days of unutilised earned leave in a calendar year prior to issuance of the Notification dated 15.06.1995 was not the subject matter or area of discussion in Khagendra Nath Deka (supra). In such circumstance, the entitlement to cash benefits in lieu of unutilised earned leave in respect of employees of Vacation Department must be considered having regard to the provisions under Rule 3(ii) read with Rue 9(1)(a)(i) of the Revised Leave Rules, 1934, together the Government Notification dated 15.06.1995. A harmonious reading of the above, would only entitle the petitioner to cash benefits in lieu of unutilised earned leave only from the effective date of the Notification dated 15.06.1995 and not from any period prior to issuance of the said notification. A harmonious reading of the above, would only entitle the petitioner to cash benefits in lieu of unutilised earned leave only from the effective date of the Notification dated 15.06.1995 and not from any period prior to issuance of the said notification. As such, the Speaking Order dated 16.08.2016, so assailed in the present writ petition, holding to the effect that the petitioner is only entitled to and have earned 80 (eighty) days of earned leave from 1995 to the date of his retirement in the year 2003, is a valid order and does not suffer from any infirmity. Having held thus, I find no merit in the writ petition and/or to grant the relief/reliefs prayed for. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed, however, without any order as to cost.