IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA L.P.A. No. 97 of 2010 Decided on: 29th July, 2010. Virender Mohan …Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge For the Appellant: Mrs. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. _________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) This appeal is filed against the judgment, dated 25.5.2010 in CWP(T) No. 10536 of 2008. The petitioner approached the Tribunal with the following prayer:- “Respondents No. 2 and 3 may kindly be ordered to quash the order, dated 16.2.2004 (Annexure A-5) and they may be directed to treat the period from 1.1.2003 to 31.3.2003 as regular and his salary for the said period may also be released without treating the said period as leave.” 2. It is evident from Annexures A-3 to A-10 that the petitioner has actually worked in the school during the said period. But, it is also seen from Annexure A-3, communication of the Deputy Director, dated 11.1.2003 that the petitioner had been rendered surplus. However, the Deputy Director had instructed the Head Master as follows:- “The Headmaster GHS Hareta Upper with the direction to not relieve Sh. Virender Mohan till further orders.” 2. There was no further order to relieve the petitioner. Be that, as it may. It is seen from Annexure A-9, Certificate, that a post of TGT (Arts) was lying vacant in the school during the relevant period and the petitioner is TGT (Arts). Learned Single Judge has taken note of the letter, Annexure A-6 that he had applied for leave for the period of January to March, 2003. But the question is , the petitioner having actually worked in the school, why should he apply for the leave. 3. Learned Senior Additional Advocate General submits that once an employee has been rendered surplus, his salary can be released only if leave of any kind, due to him, is adjusted. The Controlling Authority, Deputy Director, having directed the petitioner to continue in the school as surplus teacher, whether the petitioner can be compelled to apply for leave is also the question to be considered. But another question is whether the petitioner was in fact transferred from Government Senior Secondary School, Hareta to Government Senior Secondary School, Galore and whether that transfer is on account of petitioner becoming surplus at Government Senior Secondary School, Hareta. All these questions are not addressed either in the reply or in the proceedings. Be that, as it may. We are told that the petitioner has already retired from service on 30th June, 2010. Therefore, in case he had any leave left beyond the leave, which he could surrender, as per rules, the said period shall be adjusted against the disputed period of January to March, 2003, otherwise the period shall be treated as on duty as the petitioner has actually worked in terms of the direction issued by the Deputy Director. 4. The appeal is disposed of subject to the above modification of the judgment, passed by the learned Single Judge. The needful, as above, shall be done and all benefits, due to the petitioner, shall be disbursed within a period of three months on the production of the copy of this judgment by the petitioner. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice ( Rajiv Sharma), 29th July, 2010(K) Judge