IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3219 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.3.2011 __________________________________________________ Jagdish Chand Kashyap …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P & ors. ` ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Mr.Adarsh Vashisht, Advocate For the respondents: Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl.Advocate General. _______________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) The petitioner by means of this writ petition has claimed that he should be granted leave encashment for the period he worked in the Saksharta Abhiyan as per the directions of the State during the year 1993-94. The petitioner also claimed 9% interest on the delayed payments of pension and DCRG. The petitioner retired from service on 31st October, 2009. According to the respondents, pension payment order was issued in 2 favour of the petitioner by the Accountant General (A&E), H.P on 16.12.2009 and DCRG was paid and received by the petitioner on 29.12.2010, i.e., within a period of three months of his retirement. There is no extra ordinary delay in paying the same. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any interest. As far as the claim for leave encashment is concerned, the same is contested on the ground that the petitioner moved this application one month prior to his retirement and for 16 long years, he had remained silent and not claimed the leave encashment. Sh.Adarsh Vashisht, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the leave encashment can only be given at the time of retirement and, therefore, the right to agitate this matter arose around this time. It may be true that leave encashment is granted at the time of retirement but every employee knows what is the leave to his credit and every employee signs his service book every year to acknowledge that the facts stated in the service 3 book are correct. The service books contains a record of the leave granted to the employee and in case the petitioner had felt that leave granted to him is less then he could agitate the matter at that stage. Furthermore, at this stage, the entire record has been destroyed and after 18 years, all that can be said is that the petitioner worked in the Saksharta Abhiyan during this period but it will be impossible to prove as to on which holidays, the petitioner actually worked or not. Without proof of having worked on holidays, the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit. Therefore, this claim being highly belated is rejected. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. March 22, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge