The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking leave encashment for employees in the educational service. Relying on Pritam Masih and others, it held that employees entitled to annual vacation are not eligible for earned leave encashment under Rule 8.21.
None; application allowed only for exemption from court fee.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.11645 of 1994 (O&M) Date of decision:06.03.2013
Kaushalaya Devi and others
... Petitioners
versus
The State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present: None for the petitioners.
Mr. Amarjeet Sharma, District Attorney, Punjab.
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
CM No.8094 of 1994
Application is allowed. Exemption from payment of court fee individually granted.
Civil Writ Petition No.11645 of 1994
Civil Writ Petition No.11645 of 1994 (O&M) - 2 -
Chandra (supra) was considered by this Court in CWP No.10411 of 1993, dated 17.09.1996-Pritam Masih and others Versus State of
Punjab and others . The Bench held as follows:-
“Admittedly, the petitioners are working in a vocation department. The question as to whether or not the persons working in vocation departments are entitled to encash the half pay leave which was due to them at the time of their retirement, has been considered by a Full Bench and a Division Bench of this Court. On a consideration of the matter, it has been held that the rules “create a classification between the vocation departments and the other departments..... . The classification is prima facie reasonable.... . The petitioners prior to their retirement from service were working in the Education Department where the facility of vacation is admittedly available. As such, they were not entitled to earned leave except when they were unable to avail of the full vacation. Having not got any earned leave to their credit, they cannot claim the benefit of encashment under the provisions of rule 8.21. For the purpose of encashment, only earned leave is to be taken into consideration. Consequently, no benefit can be granted to the petitioners.”
Civil Writ Petition No.11645 of 1994 (O&M) - 3 -
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 06.03.2013 sanjeev
2 issues framed by the court
Whether persons in the educational service are entitled to encash half pay leave due at retirement under Rule 8.21.
Whether preretirement leave encashment applies when no earned leave is credited due to the facility of annual vacation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satish Chandra Versus Union of India and othersReferred¶14
Satish Chandra Versus Union of India and others in CWP No.764 of 1987, decided on 30.07.1987
Pritam Masih and others Versus State of Punjab and othersFollowed¶16
CWP No.10411 of 1993, dated 17.09.1996-Pritam Masih and others Versus State of Punjab and others
Kaushalaya Devi and others
State of Punjab and others
K. Kannan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
