IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RANJAN SHARMA, J.
Ram Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors - Respondents
CWP No. 9133 of 2023
Decided on : 21-11-2023
Leave Encashment - Petition for Release of Arrears - CCS (Leave) Rules 1972 - CWP No.7359 of 2021, CWP No. 801 of 2023 - The petitioner, a retired Deputy Ranger, filed a petition seeking the release of due and admissible arrears of Revised Leave Encashment, accrued after the revision of pay scale and resultant financial up-gradation w.e.f. 1.1.2016. The petitioner relied on the judgment in CWP No.7359 of 2021 and a subsequent judgment in CWP No. 801 of 2023, which directed the settlement of entitlement of Revised Leave Encashment. The court permitted the petitioner to make a representation to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Shimla, within two weeks, and directed the respondent to examine and consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within four weeks thereafter.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Deputy Ranger, sought the release of due and admissible arrears of Revised Leave Encashment, accrued after the revision of pay scale and resultant financial up-gradation w.e.f. 1.1.2016.
Finding of the Court:
The court permitted the petitioner to make a representation to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Shimla, within two weeks, and directed the respondent to examine and consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within four weeks thereafter.
Issues: The main issue was the entitlement of the petitioner to Revised Leave Encashment based on the revised pay scale and resultant financial up-gradation w.e.f. 1.1.2016.
Ratio Decidendi: The court allowed the petitioner to make a representation to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Shimla, and directed the respondent to examine and consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within four weeks thereafter.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition and any pending miscellaneous application(s) accordingly, without adjudicating on the merits of the matter.
JUDGMENT :
RANJAN SHARMA, J.
Notice. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition, is taken up for disposal, at this stage, in view of the order(s) intended to be passed herein.
3. The petitioner, having retired from the post of Deputy Ranger from Forest Division, Rohru on 31.07.2017 has filed the instant petition, praying for the following relief(s):-
4. Case of the petitioner, as submitted by the learned Counsel, is that the petitioner retired from the post of Deputy Ranger, from Forest Division Rohru, on 30.07.2017 and after his superannuation, the State Government issued a notification on 3.1.2022, whereby the State Government revised the pay scales for all its employees w.e.f. 1.1.2016. The further case of the petitioner is that on retirement, he was granted the benefit of Leave Encashment on the basis of unrevised pay in the unrevised pay scale.
5. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that consequent upon the revision of pay scale by the State Government on 3.1.2022, the petitioner is entitled to be granted the benefit of Revised Leave Encashment on the basis of revised pay in terms of the judgment of this Court in CWP No.7359 of 2021, titled as Amita Gupta versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 01.12.2022, Annexure P-2.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the department had denied grant the benefit of the Revised Leave Encashment on the basis of Notification of the Finance Department dated 13.8.2013 illegally, when, this Notification has been withdrawn by the State Government as on day; and even otherwise also, the Notification dated 13.08.2013 can neither curtail nor take away the right of an employee to get the benefit of the “Leave Encashment on the basis of the pay admissible on date of retirement, in terms of Rule 39(2) (b) (i) of the CCS (Leave)” Rules 1972, as adopted/applicable to the employee of the State Government.
7. In this background after the issuance of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules as per the Notification dated 3.1.2022, once an employee, alike the petitioner, was granted the revised pay scale/revised pay w.e.f. 1.1.2016 and this “revised pay became the pay admissible on the date of retirement” of such an employee, alike the petitioner on 30.07.2017; therefore, based on this admissible-revised-pay, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Revised Leave Encashment but this benefit of Revised Leave Encashment has not been released to the petitioner till day, which is illegal, contrary to Rules and is arbitrary and unsustainable.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, has further relied upon a judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 801 of 2023, titled as Shushil Kumar Sharma versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 22nd June, 2023, (Annexure P-3) whereby, the Division Bench of this Court had directed the respondents to settle the entitlement of Revised Leave Encashment, in terms of the judgment in case of Amita Gupta versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others (
The entitlement to Revised Leave Encashment based on the revised pay scale and resultant financial up-gradation w.e.f. 1.1.2016 is subject to the petitioner making a representation to the Chief Conse....
The entitlement to Revised Leave Encashment based on the revised pay scale and the reliance on previous judgments to support the claim.
Point of Law : Once the revised DA/ADA is to be taken into consideration for revising the payable leave encashment at the time of retirement, then certainly revised pay of an employee re-fixed from a....
The court's decision emphasized the right of the petitioner to seek benefits under the relevant rules, allowing for a representation to be made.
The court's decision emphasized the right of the petitioner to make a representation for claiming arrears of pay, pension, leave encashment, and commuted pension under the relevant rules.
Revised leave encashment is payable if pay is refixed retrospectively, even if leave encashment was earlier settled in a lump sum, as the eligibility relates to the date of retirement.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the petitioner to revised gratuity and leave encashment as per the relevant rules and judgments, and the obligation of the Respo....
The non-payment of enhanced gratuity and leave encashment as per the amendment is unconstitutional and must be resolved by the Respondent-Corporation within a specified timeline.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of employees to revised retirement benefits as per government notifications and the obligation of the employer to release the be....
Retired employees are entitled to leave encashment as a matter of legal right, and undue delays in payment due to pending inquiries are not justified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.