UMESH CHANDRA SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Nirbhay Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioners as well as Sri Gaurav Singh learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Dinesh Kumar (AoR A/D 0370/2012) holding brief of Sri Kushmondeya Shahi, learned counsel for the BSA.

(2.) A joint statement has been made by learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any affidavit and the petition be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the petition be decided at the fresh stage.

(3.) The case of the writ petitioners is that so far as the writ petitioner no. 1 is concerned he was appointed as a class IV employee on 7/5/1993 and promoted as Clerk on 10/12/2020 and superannuated on 30/6/2024, as regards petitioner no. 2 was appointed as a Clerk on 14/8/2001 and superannuated on 30/6/2022 and petitioner no. 3 was appointed as Class IV employee on 24/7/1990 and superannuated on 31/3/2025. Since the writ petitioners are not accorded the leave encashment so they preferred Writ-A No. 6444 of 2021 which came to be disposed of on 28/4/2025 requiring the respondents to consider the claim and the claim set up by the writ petitioner came to be rejected on 14/8/2025 by the District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Nagar, third respondent.