The main legal point established is that in cases of superannuation and entitlement to benefits, the Court may consider the interest of justice and make decisions accordingly.

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. 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 a