Petitioner sought leave encashment dues from respondents. Relying on Rule 6 of the Grant-in-Aid Rules and earlier review orders fixing a 95:5 State-institution liability split, the Court directed payment of admissible leave encashment within three months, failing which interest at 6% per annum applies.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:HHC:4515
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
CWP No. 1383 of 2024 Decided on 04th July, 2024
Rajinder Kumar
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
…Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner: Mr. V.B. Verma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Ayush Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter
alia , prayed for the following reliefs:
2
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the nonrelease of leave encashment in his favour. He further submits that the issue as to who has to pay the leave encashment to the petitioner is no more res-integra as it stands settled by this Court in CWP No. 60 of 2006, titled as Jagdev Katoch vs. State of H.P. and others, dated 20.06.2008, read alongwith judgment passed in Review Petition No. 22 of 2020, titled as Maharaja Lakshman Sen Memorial College versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 10.09.2020, that the liability to pay the leave encashment is that of the State to the extent of 95% and of the private institution is to the extent of 5%. Learned Counsel further submits that above cited judgments stand implemented by the respondents even qua other colleagues of the petitioners.
3
Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that he may be granted some time to have instructions in the matter.
As prayed for, list on 28.03.2024.
some more time be granted to have instructions in the matter.
4
not the case of the respondent that the petitioner was serving against a teaching post in the private institution, which was not approved by the Government. Findings returned in Review Petition could not be denied by the respondents. That being so, petitioner is held entitled for the relief prayed for, therefore, in this view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to pay admissible leave encashment to the petitioner, 95% of which shall be borne by the State and 5% by the private institution. In case the due and admissible amount is not paid within three months, the same shall entail interest @6% per annum from the date of judgment. Pending
miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge
July 04, 2024 (Vinod)
1 issue framed by the court
Is the petitioner entitled to leave encashment with liability shared 95% by the State and 5% by the private institution under the Grant-in-Aid Rules?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jagdev Katoch vs. State of H.P. and othersRelied on
CWP No. 60 of 2006
Maharaja Lakshman Sen Memorial College versus State of H.P. and othersRelied on
Review Petition No. 22 of 2020
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajinder Kumar
State of Himachal Pradesh
Ajay Mohan Goel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
