CWP(T) No.8912/2008 28.6.2010 Present: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. L. N. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4 Undisputedly, petitioner retired on 28.2.2002. Her claim for release of monetary benefits, including leave encashment was turned down by the State in terms of letter dated 11.6.2002 (Annexure A-1), written by the Deputy Director Education (Primary) to the Block Primary Education Officer, Shimla-4. 2. In terms of the said order, the leave of the kind due, and sanctioned stands reviewed and changed to the disadvantage of the petitioner herein. Undisputedly, petitioner was never informed of any action in contemplation before taking the decision communicated vide letter dated 11.6.2002. Petitioner was also never associated before taking the decision. The contention that the letter dated 11.6.2002, copy of which was marked to the petitioner as a notice, in itself needs to be rejected for the reasons that the letter specifically conveys the decision taken by the Government. 3. On this short ground alone, Annexure A-I is quashed. However, respondents are at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Needless to add, before taking such action the authority shall not only issue show cause notice, but if required also afford adequate opportunity of hearing/representation to the petitioner. The authority shall pass a reasoned order which shall be communicated to the petitioner. Liberty granted to approach the Court if need so arises subsequently. 4. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. June 28, 2010 (rana)