•^, c^ \^  Slngle Beneh IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (St N0. L^y^ /2009 PETITIONER r" Smt. Swapna Lahari W/o Shri A.K.Lahari, Aged about 68 years, R/o Godripara, Chirimiri, Distt. Korea-(C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. ^^y 2. ^^.A--"" "' State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Department of Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Smt. Aarti Tiwari, Principal, Government Lahari College, Chirimiri, Distt. Korea-(C.G-) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION, CERTIORARI ETC. OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER AF/f ; i t^v HIGH CQURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 4512 of 2009 PETITIONER : Smt. Swapna Lahiri.. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & another. Post for pronouncement ofjudgment on . .^.day ofFebruary, 2010. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^ NINN»^, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 4512 of2009 PETITIONER : Smt.SwapnaLahiri.. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & another. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Sunil Otwani^ Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Govemment Advocate for the State/respondent No. 1. Shri Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. JUDGMENT (Delivered on .^^>~"day of February, 2010) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to make payment ofthe balance leave encashment for 113 days with interest within a period ofone week. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner worldng as Principal., Govemment Lahiri College, Chirmiri^ District Koria, retired on attainmg the age of superannuation on 30.06.2003. The petitioner has obtained all the retiral benefits pursuant to order dated 8.2.2008 (Annexure P/3) passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 252/2007, whereby her case for payment of retiral dues was referred to the Hlgh Power Retiral Dues Committee (for short 'the Comm^te^') constituted by the State Government^ for considering the case ofthe petitioner for grant ofretiral dues. Shri Otwani^ leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been paid. all the retiral dues except .^sss^^^ tri" .y ^ J ^s^^ leave encashment amount for 113 days out of 240 days to which she was entitled. Shri Otwani would further submit that the petitioner relies on the letter dated 22.06.2004 (Annexure P/7) whereby the Joint Director, Directorate of Higher Education, Government of Chhattisgarh, has recommended to the Secretary, Higher Education Department, for grant of leave encashment for 240 days leave. Shri Otwani would further contend that on account of the recommendation made by the Joint Director, there was no reason to make payment of leave encashment for 127 days only and not for 240 days. Accordingly, a writ may be issued to the respondents to make payment ofleave encashment for the balance 113 days. Per contra, Shri Bhatia, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearmg for the State/respondent No. 1 would submit that at the time of retirement of the petitioner^ the petitioner was working as Incharge Principal., Govemment Lahiri College^ Chirmiri, District Korea. The service book was in her possession. The petitioner herself calculated the leave encashment period and fonvarded it to the Commissioner, Higher Education, for its approval. Believing the statement made by the petitioner to be true, the Commissioner, Higher Education under the signature of Joint Director, wrote to the Secretary, Higher Education Department for payment of leave encashment for a period of 240 days. The letter dated 22.06.2004 (Annexure P/7) is not an authority and not conclusive for grant of leave encashment for total periodof240 days. Shri Bhatia would further submit that on perusal ofthe service book of the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner was initially appointed in a private college. The said college was taken over by the ''^. ^- '^,, ^"@i •-^'' T^'~ ^';"i £:-....- Govemment on 27.03.1981 and the services of the petitioner/was absorbed on the post of Assistant Professor on the same date i.e. 27.03.1981. The total eamed leave of the petitioner for encashment was 327 days out of which she had already used 200 days as on 30.07.2003 and only 127 days remained as balance in her account for encashment. The petitioner was accordingly paid leave encashment for 127 days. 6. Shri Bhatia would next submit that pursuant to order dated 8.2.2008 (Annexure P/3) passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 252/2007, whereby the case of the petitioner for payment of for payment of retiral dues was referred to the Committee, comprising of Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Finance Department, Commissioner, Treasury, Accounts & Pension, Additional Secretary, Law Department, Deputy Accountant General (Fund) and Deputy Secretary, General Admmistration Department, Govemment of Chhattisgarh. The Committee has already considered the above facts and came to the conclusion that the case of the petitioner should be considered in respect of grant of leave encashment within a period of three months. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner was considered and it was found that the petitioner is entitled for leave encashment for 127 days only. 7. Having heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties^ pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto, there is no dispute that the college, wherein the petitioner was working, was taken over by the Government on 27.03.1981 and she was absorbed on the post of Assistant Professor on that date. There is further no issue with regard to counting of ser^ice from the earlier date in the present petition and ,^f^% ^ ^^ '.-—"?.^ flw"^»^^ ^l^. 8. 9. also it is not the case ofpetitioner that her seniority is to be counted from the initial date of appointment, not from the date of absorption. It is clear from the letter dated 13.12.2004 (Annexure R-l/2) of the Principal, Government Lahiri College, addressed to the Commissioner, Higher Education that out of 327 days leave eamed by the petitioner, the petitioner had already availed 200 days leave and the remaining 127 days only was available for encashment. It was fuirther observed in the letter that the petitioner herself has made wrong entries in her ser^ice book. Thus, -there was a discrepancy in eaming of leave. Thus, the petitioner was entitled to leave encashment for 127 days only. The same was already paid to the petitioner. Thus, nothing remains to be paid to the petitioner. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order asto costs. S^. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit