Civil Writ Petition No.4222 of 2011 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 29, 2011 Mansa Ram & others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana & another ....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.S.K.Sud, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Four petitioners have filed this writ petition for claiming encashment of earned leave for 60 days, though they have been earlier allowed leave encashment for 240 days. An additional claim is made on account of the Government instructions granting enhancement of leave encashment to 300 days. The petitioners have not given their date of respective retirements. The case was adjourned to enable the counsel to disclose this information. It is now orally stated that the petitioners have retired in the year 2000-2001. At the time of their retirement, Civil Writ Petition No.4222 of 2011 : 2 : they were paid leave encashment for unutilised leave of 240 days in each case. They have suddenly woken up after 10 to 11 years to make the present claim, asking for payment of 60 days of earned leave. The instructions on the basis of which relief is claimed are of 1998. The petitioners, in my view, have waited far too long to make the present claim, which has, thus, become stale. Without going into the entitlement, I am not inclined to consider the claim in view of the delay. To be fair to the counsel for the petitioners, he has made reference to the case of Jugal Kishore Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2009(4) RSJ 543 to urge that delay in matter of disbursement of pension is immaterial. The issue in this case was based on the revision of pay scales. The claim was rejected on the ground that legal notice was served after 9 years of retirement. It is observed that it would be incumbent upon the respondents to grant benefit to all the employees, whether they have approached the Court, once the issue is decided. The ratio of law in this case, thus, would be of no help to the petitioners. The writ petition accordingly is dismissed on the ground of delayed approach. March 29, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE