Dismissed¶19

Hosiyar Singh v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC13 May 2025CWP/6829/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP-6829-2025, Punjab & Haryana High Court, decided 13.05.2025, Tribhuvan Dahiya J. Retired teacher's claim for leave encashment of 25 days for absence 21.11.2015-15.12.2015 (transfer cancelled due to wife's cancer) and Children Education Allowance for full session 2024-25 after superannuation on 30.04.2024. Absence already converted to earned leave with service book entry; claim barred by estoppel after ~10 years of no grievance; CEA not admissible post-retirement; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

It is undisputed that the petitioner's absence from 21.11.2015 to 15.12.2015 was converted into earned leave on 15.12.2015, the date he rejoined duty. ¶18

Hosiyar Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CWP-6829-2025

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

121 CWP-6829-2025 Date of Decision: 13.05.2025

¶5

Hoshiyar Singh …Petitioner(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and others …Respondent(s)

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

¶9

Present:Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner

¶10

Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana

¶11

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral)

¶12

The petition has been filed with the grievance that the petitioner is entitled to leave encashment of twenty-five days from 21.11.2015 to 15.12.2015, as also Children Education Allowance for the complete session 2024-25, which have been withheld by the Department.

¶13

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner was transferred from Government Model Senior Secondary School, Kanina, to Government High School, Path Khori, District Mewat on 21.11.2015. However, the order was later cancelled vide office order, dated 15.12.2015, on account of the petitioner’s wife being suffering from cancer. In these circumstances, he could not join service from 21.11.2015 to 15.12.2015, and this period needs to be treated as duty period. The petitioner cannot be deprived of any benefits on account of his absence. He also contended that the petitioner superannuated from service on 30.04.2024, and was paid Children Education Allowance only for the quarter up to the date of superannuation, though he was entitled to the

¶14

PAYAL 2025.05.19 09:15 I attest to the accuracy and same for the entire session of 2024-25. integrity of this order/judgment

¶15

CWP-6829-2025 -2-

¶16

Learned State counsel, on the contrary, contends that the petitioner remained absent from duty for twenty-four days from 21.11.2015 to 15.12.2015, and considering the circumstances he was in, this period of absence was converted into earned leave as per the rules, and an entry to that effect was made in his service book on the day he rejoined duty. She further contends that up to the date of superannuation the due benefit of Children Education Allowance has been given to the petitioner, and he is not entitled to the same post retirement.

¶17

Heard.

¶18

Undisputedly, the period of petitioner’s absence from 21.11.2015 to 15.12.2015 was converted into earned leave on 15.12.2015, the date he rejoined duty. No grievance against it was ever raised for the last about ten years, while the petitioner was in service. Consequently, he estopped from challenging the same at this stage. Besides, an employee is entitled to Children Education Allowance only for the duration he/she remains in service. The benefit cannot be extended post-retirement, nor any rule or regulation to that effect has been cited.

¶19

In view thereof, there is no ground to entertain the petition, and it stands dismissed.

¶20

(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE

¶21

13.05.2025
Payal
	Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
	Whether reportable	Yes/No

¶22

PAYAL 2025.05.19 09:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

Hosiyar Singh v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hosiyar Singh v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lajpati Devi and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mahipal Singh Vs the State of Haryana and Others

Monika Vs State of Haryana and Others

Amit Kumar through Power of Attorney Holder Vs State of Haryana through Its Principal Secretary Police Department

Ramesh Kumar etc. Vs State of Hy.Etc.

B L Mehta Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Chandigarh Housing Board and Anr.