CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14940 OF 1992 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 12, 2008 Sarwan Kumar Nagpal .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. B. K. Bagri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus for granting full benefit of encashment of earned leave/balanced earned leave of 140 days. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner retired from Haryana Education Department on 31.1.1992 on superannuation. He had joined the Education Department as a J.B.T. Teacher long CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14940 OF 1992 :{ 2 }: ago on 18.2.1956. His services were provincialised with effect from 1.10.1957. Prior to his retirement, he worked in various Government Schools with distinction. The petitioner has retired from service after putting in 35 years of service. It is claimed that the petitioner had accumulated a total of 180 days earned leave by virtue of his service. As per the averments in the petition, the Government of Haryana issued instructions dated 13.2.1978 for grant of facilities of encashment in lieu of unutilised earned leave that may be standing to the credit of Government employee. The maximum limit, for which one could seek encashment, was fixed as 180 days. This was subsequently extended to 240 days. Though the petitioner had received all other retiral benefits like pension, gratuity etc. but he was not given credit of 180 days earned leave and was instead paid only 40 days salary in lieu of leave encashment. The petitioner made various representations but he was denied the benefit of 140 days leave encashment. He has, thus, filed the present writ petition in the year 1992. In reply, the State has taken a preliminary objection by saying that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches inasmuch as it is filed after the expiry of five years. Reliance is placed on the Government instructions dated 9.4.1987 wherein it is clarified that the teachers who complete one year of service on 9.4.87 or thereafter will be entitled to 10 days earned leave on completion of one year service. Relying on these instructions, it is stated that the petitioner was entitled to encashment of 40 days of his accumulated leave, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14940 OF 1992 :{ 3 }: which credit is already given to him. It is accordingly pleaded that the dues have rightly been given to the petitioner and he is not entitled to the claim of encashment of 140 days of the remaining period of leave. The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner had earned leave of 180 days. He has been given the benefit of encashment of 40 days of earned leave. This is on the basis of instructions issued by the respondent-State through a Government letter No.11/30/87-IFR-II dated 9.4.1987. It is provided in these instructions that a teacher completing service on 9.4.1987 or thereafter will be entitled to 10 days earned leave on completion of one year service. The petitioner had retired in the year 1991 and accordingly he has been given credit of 40 days of earned leave for the purpose of encashment. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show anything substantial to rebut the stand taken by the respondents. The encashment of earned leave is permitted as per Government instructions which would, as such, regulate the same. During the course of arguments, learned counsel wanted to place on record the instructions dated 13.2.1978. This appropriately should have been done earlier. It will not be proper to take on record or to deal with any document at this stage without putting the respondents to notice. The writ petition is pending since the year 1992 and any such plea, on which the petitioner wishes to place reliance, was required to be raised in the writ petition, enabling the respondents to tender CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14940 OF 1992 :{ 4 }: effective reply thereto. The prayer of the petitioner, for taking on record instructions dated 13.2.1978, is accordingly declined. Otherwise, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. February 12, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE