IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.7857 of 2008. Decided on: 20.12.2010. Babu Ram . ……….Petitioner. Versus H.P.State Council for Child Welfare. ……….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner. : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondent : Ms. Karuna Machhan, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he has not been paid gratuity and leave encashment. The case of the respondent-Council is that there is shortage of funds. It has come in the reply of the Council in para No. 10 that the Council has already taken up the matter with the State Government for the payment of gratuity and leave encashment, on 30.05.2001. There is no material on record to substantiate that the State Government till date has taken any decision. It is apparent from Para No.9 of the reply as far as one Laxmi Singh Bhatia is concerned, that the leave contribution towards outstanding earned leave was sent to his Employer. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the Secretary (Welfare)to take a final decision on the basis of averments contained in Para No. 9 and 10 of the reply within a period of eight weeks’ from today. The Secretary(Welfare) while deciding the case shall take into consideration that the petitioner has been working with the Council since 1984 and was also granted regular pay 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?. No. scale of Rs. 300-430/- with effect from 01.01.1985. The respondent-Council is directed to ensure that the persons, who have put up more than two decades of service are given retiral benefits. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Copy ‘dasti’. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge December 20, 2010. (krt) 2