Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 94 (HP)

Sant Ram v. State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

2021-03-01

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2021
JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - 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 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. 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 respondentState 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. 9. The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.