The entitlement to Revised Leave Encashment based on the revised pay scale and the reliance on previous judgments to support the claim.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Notice. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner, having retired from the post of Range Forest Officer from Forest Division, Rohru on 31.08.2018 has filed the instant petition, praying for the following relief(s):-

“1) Writ of Mandamus be issued by directing the respondent authorities to release due and admissible arrears of Revised Leave Encashment, accrued in favour of the petitioner on account of Revision of pay scale and resultant financial up-gradation arising therefrom w.e.f, 1.1.2016, after their superannuation, with interest. Further, the difference in Leave Encashment on account of revision of pay scale and resultant financial up-gradation w.e.f, 1.1.2016 has become their legal, enforceable and legitimate right in terms of Authoritative pronouncement given by Hon’ble High Court in CWP No.7359 of 2021, dated 1.12.2022 titled as Amita Gupta vs. State of H.P. & Ors and on account of parity as the Deputy Director, Kangra has already released arrears of Revised Leave Encashment in favour of counterparts of the petitioner.”

3. Case of the petitioner as submitted by the learned Counsel, is that the petitioner retired from the post of Range Forest Officer from Forest Division Rohru on 31.08.2018 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.

4. 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 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.

5. 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on the basis of Notification of the Finance Department dated 13.8.2013 illegally, when, this Notification has been withdrawn by the State Government as on day; and even otherwise also, the Notification dated 13.08.2013 can neither curtail nor take away the right of an employee to get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)”, as has been mandated in the case of Amita Gupta(supra).

6. In this background; after issuance of the 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 31.08.2018; therefore, based on this admissible-revised-pay, the petitioner was entitled for release of Revised Leave Encashment but this benefit of Revised Leave Encashment has not been released to the petitioner till day, is illegal, contrary to Rules and is arbitrary and unsustainable.

7. 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 sanction and release the Revised Leave Encashment benefits, in terms of the judgment in case of Amita Gupta versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others (supra), which also stands implemented by the State Authorities.

8. Per contra, Mr. Vishal Panwar, the learned Additional Advocate General, submits that the petitioner h