IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26271 of 2008 Between: N. Sri Rama Rao S/o. N. Raghupathi Rao Plot No. 316, Phase-II Panchayat Raj Teachers Colony, B.N. Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary, Singareni Collieries Educational Society Registrar Office at Qr.No. UM-14, Writers Basti Kothagudem, Khammam District. 2 The Head Master, Singareni Collieries High School, Sector -II Godavari Khani, Karimnagar District. 3 The District Educational Officer, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner to encash (70) days of earned Leave which is credited to the account as per the service records or to take immediate effective steps to get sanction from Singareni Collieries Educational Society for encashment of 70 days earned leave credited to account of petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner:D.KANAKA SUNDARY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER The petitioner retired as Physical Education Teacher in Singareni Collieries Educational Society. On 30.6.2006 he made an application for encashment of earned leave. His case has been forwarded by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the District Educational Officer-3rd respondent on 15.9.2006. Since the 3rd respondent has not taken any decision on the leave encashment application submitted by him, he approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri Nandigama Krishna Rao, learned standing counsel of Singareni Collieries Company Limited received notice on behalf of R1 and R2. Learned Government Pleader for Education received notice on behalf of R3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that leave encashment application of the petitioner came to be forwarded to the 3rd respondent and the matter rests with him for passing appropriate orders. For better appreciation, I may refer paras 7 & 8 of the Counter- affidavit, which read as hereunder: “That in reply to Para-7 it is to submit that the petitioner cannot have any grievance with regard to the payment of encashment of leave which is paid to such teachers who claim every year. A perusal of the letter dated 11.8.2005 clearly indicates the name of the petitioner at Sl.No.5. In fact, this respondent has settled the encashment of leave on year to year basis to all those teachers who happen to apply. But the payment for leave on cumulative basis at the time of retirement as aided teachers has to been referred to Government to determine the amount and thereafter the difference if any that may be applicable to the aided teachers will be funded by the Society. That in reply to Para-8 it is to submit that the Society has experienced difficulty in getting the amounts representing the encashment of leave in respect of aided teachers and though in the earlier past some cases were settled it cannot be a precedent as it is creating a financial problem to the respondent society which has to manage from its funds and run schools. In fact a reading of the writ petition makes it clear that the 3rd respondent who is the pay-master for the aided teachers has to release the funds to enable the society to meet its obligation for further onward payment to the aided teachers like the petitioner. Once the encashment of leave is settled and released this respondent has no objection to pay the entire amount as sent and forwarded by the 3rd respondent including any such additional amount which the petitioner is entitled.” Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The factual aspect of respondent Nos.1 and 2 recommending the case of the petitioner for encashment of earned leave is not in dispute. Indeed, a letter has been placed on record addressed to the District Educational Officer-3rd respondent, which reads as hereunder: “I herewith submit the 70 days leave encashment pay bill of Rs.40,326/- (Rupees forty thousand three hundred and twenty six only) pertaining to Sri N.Sri Rama Rao, PET of our school who retired on 30.6.2006.” Such is the situation, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider the proposal sent by respondent Nos.1 and 2 with regard to entitlement of the petitioner with regard to encashment of leave and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ___________ 13-02-2009 rkk