IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 12112 of 2008 Decided on: November 11, 2011. ____________________________________________________ Smt. Rajeshwari Devi. ……..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Thakur, Advocate, vice counsel, Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate. For respondents No.1 : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. and 2 For respondent No.3 : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J (oral): O.A. No.1905 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner in the erstwhile Tribunal and on its abolition, it was transferred to this Court and now registered as CWP (T) No.12112 of 2008. 2. In fact, by means of the present petition, the petitioner seeks directions to the respondents to release the pension, gratuity and leave encashment with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 1.9.2003 till its payment. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 3. The petitioner was employed as a Balsewika under a scheme (Family and Child Welfare Project) run on 100% grant-in-aid, funded by the State Government under the respondent-Board. Admittedly, the Board and the Projects run by the Board do not have their own income. 4. The petitioner retired from service on 31st August, 2003 on attaining the age of superannuation. In the year 1997, the Government of Himachal Pradesh with the concurrence of Finance Department conveyed its approval to the respondent- Board, to extend the gratuity benefits to its staff, out of its sanctioned grants released by the State Government. 5. Therefore, pursuant to the aforesaid decision of the State Government, the petitioner is entitled for the leave encashment and gratuity. After retirement, only the gratuity amount of Rs.65,000/- was released to the petitioner. Now the petitioner sought the relief - 3 - directing the respondents to pay the pension in addition to gratuity. 6. Admittedly, there is no pension scheme for such retirees working under the scheme(s) run by the Board, but certainly they are entitled to leave encashment and gratuity. The respondents in their reply affidavit contended that they are to pay the gratuity and leave encashment to the petitioner out of its sanctioned grants, which are released by the State Government from time to time. 7. Since the Board does not have its own funds and they are entirely dependent upon the grants released by the State Government, it is difficult for them to pay the leave encashment and gratuity to the retirees, employed under the schemes. 8. The respondent-State being a welfare State and having conveyed its approval for the payment of gratuity in view of the letter mentioned above and also there is no denial that the petitioner is not entitled to leave encashment also, as such, respondents No.1 - 4 - and 2 are hereby directed to release the requisite amount of money by way of grant, in favour of the respondent-Board, so that the claims of the petitioner for retirement gratuity and leave encashment can be satisfied [minus the amount already paid] within three months from the production of the certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner to the respondent- Board, failing which, it shall carry an interest @12% per annum from the date it fell due. 9. With these directions, the petition stands disposed of. (Surinder Singh), Judge. November 11, 2011. k.sharma