CWP No. 8434 of 1991 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 8434 of 1991 Date of decision: December 19, 2008. Manohar Lal Sharma & Ors. ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Haryana & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: None for the petitioner. Shri R.D. Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioners are old retirees who held different posts in the Govt. of Haryana till they retired on superannuation on different dates ranging from December 1972 to 28.2.1986. They are aggrieved at the cut- off date firstly given in the Govt. circular dated 13.2.1978 (Annexure P-1) and again in the circular dated 29.4.1987 (Annexure P-2). Vide the first circular, it was decided that the Haryana Govt. employees retiring on superannuation on or after 31.1.1978 will be paid cash equivalent to leave salary in respect of the period of earned leave at their credit at the time of CWP No. 8434 of 1991 -: 2 :- retirement. The payment of cash equivalent to leave salary was limited to a maximum of 180 days earned leave. Vide the subsequent circular dated 29.4.1987, the aforementioned benefit was extended to a maximum of 240 days earned leave, however, in favour of those employees only who retired on or after 1st July, 1986. According to the petitioners, the cut-off date fixed in the aforementioned circulars is wholly arbitrary and amounts to artificial discrimination between similarly situated retirees. The contention appears to be based upon the decision of the Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, 1983(1) SCC 305. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit, paragraphs 5 & 8 whereof read as follows:- “5. In reply to para-5 of the petition, it is submitted that the decision of Haryana Government to grant this concession of encashment in lieu of unutilized leave was based on the decision of Govt. of India which was enforceable with effect from 1.7.86 and not retrospectively. Hence the impugned decision of the Haryana Govt. is legal and valid. 8. In reply to para-8 of the petition, it is submitted that the limit for leave encashment at the time of retirement of the petitioner was 180 days. Leave encashment at the time of retirement was increased from 180 days to 240 days w.e.f. 1.7.86 on the basis of a decision taken by the Central Govt. in pursuance of the recommendation of the 4th Pay Commission. It is, however, submitted that the representation received from petitioner No.18 was CWP No. 8434 of 1991 -: 3 :- considered and filed keeping in view the instructions of the State Govt. bearing No.11/50/87-1FR-II, dated 29.4.1987, as it cannot be enforced retrospectively.” As may be seen, the additional benefit of encashment of earned leave for 240 days has been granted under the directives of the Central Govt. upon recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission. The Pay Commission's recommendations were implemented uniformly with effect from 1.1.1986 only. The cut-off date, thus, has not been taken just out of hat and has a rationale behind the object sought to be achieved. The principle enunciated in D.S. Nakara's case (supra) have been subsequently explained by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Krishena Kumar v. Union of India and others, (1990)4 SCC 207. No case to interfere with the impugned circulars is made out. Dismissed. December 19, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge