IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 218 of 2010. Decided on: 3.3.2010 Anita Upadhayaya …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Ms.Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.(Oral) The writ petition has been filed with the following prayer: a) That a wring of mandamus may be issued to the respondents directing them to pay the salary of the petitioner for the period w.e.f. March, 2002 to March, 2003 forthwith. b) That the respondents may be restrained to treat the aforesaid period w.e.f. March, 2002 to March, 2003 as leave of kind due. According to the petitioner, for no fault on her part, she is denied the salary for the period from March, 2002 to March, 2003. Finally, the Department has agreed, taking into account the fact that the petitioner has in fact worked in the place during that 2 period, for treating this period as duty by adjusting the period as leave due to her account. The petitioner apprehends that even the leave not due will be taken away on that account. We do not find any basis for that apprehension. On the well settled principles of law, when a period is regularized as duty by treating the same as leave of kind due, it can only mean leave of any kind and available as on the date of the order, unless it is specified in the order that the same would apply to leave not due also. The date for the purpose of this case is 31.3.2003. Therefore, if leave of any kind is available in the leave account of the petitioner as on 31.3.2003, the petitioner will have to necessarily forgo the same for the purpose of adjustment. On the other hand, if there is no leave due to her account as on 31.3.2003, the period will be treated on duty for all purposes and the petitioner will have to be paid salary and other service benefits without any break. Still further, it is clarified that to the extent of any leave as on 31.3.2003, the same will be adjusted and the balance period for the purpose of service benefits will treated as duty. The needful in that regard shall be done within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner before the second respondent. The petitioner shall also be disbursed her salary and other service benefits. It is made clear that in the unlikely event of the decision being taken beyond the aforesaid period, the petitioner shall be entitled to 3 10% interest from March, 2003 and the officers who caused the delay will be personally liable for the said interest. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, so the pending application(s), if any. Dasti copy. ( Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice. March 3, 2010 (V.K.Ahuja) (trs/bss) Judge