AMITA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Actual monetary benefits admittedly due to the petitioner towards revised leave encashment, on account of re- fixation of her pay in higher pay-scale from a retrospective date after her superannuation, are not being released by the respondents. Hence, the writ petition.

(2.) Facts

(3.) Contentions:- We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. The Chief Architect (respondent No.3) in his correspondence with the other respondents had vouched for the entitlement of petitioner to the difference in leave encashment amount on account of revision of her pay scale after retirement. However, in the common reply filed by all the respondents, the impugned action of denying the revised leave encashment to the petitioner has been defended. The respondents in their reply have justified denying the claim of the petitioner on the basis of a notification of Finance Department dtd. 13/8/2013 and the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972. Whereas contention raised for the petitioner is that it is petitioner's right to have the leave encashment which is otherwise permissible to her in terms of re-fixation of her pay ordered after her retirement. It has further been submitted that the interpretation given by the respondents to the CCS (Leave) Rules for denying the revised leave encashment to the petitioner is incorrect. That the notification issued by the Finance Department on 13/8/2013 cannot deprive the petitioner of her right to claim due and admissible leave encashment.