1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7419/2002. : : Gopal Lal Agrawal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 2.12.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Bhupendra Pareek for the petitioner. Mr.Aklesh Jain, Deputy Govt.Counsel for the State. The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by refusal of the respondents to pay to him arrears of leave encashment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deen Dayal Khunteta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : 1995 (2) WLC (Raj.), 22 and Single Bench in the case of Dr.J.K.Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 1996 (3) WLC (Raj), 470 and has argued that this Court in the aforesaid cases has held that no discrimination can be made between the employees, who are retired on voluntary basis within the scope of Rule 244 (1) of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 or those who are compulsory retired within Rule 244 (2) (supra). Learned counsel 2 submitted that taking into account all these judgments and the judicial approach the respondents themselves by notification dated 20.8.2001 brought about rule position in tune with the aforesaid judgments by amending Rule 91 (B) (1) of the RSR. The respondents in reply to the writ petition have stated that amendment aforesaid made by notification dated 20.8.2001 would be applicable only prospectively and it cannot be applied retrospectively because the petitioner was compulsory retired vide order dated 19.5.2002. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in Dr.J.K.Jain and in Deen Dayal Khunteta (supra) and subsequent amendment in Rule 91 (B) (1), I do not find any merit in the aforesaid arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner according to the aforesaid judgments would also be entitled to benefit of leave encashment for the aforesaid period, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner the benefit of leave encashment as admissible under Rule 91 (B) (1) together with interest @ 6% per annum. 3 Compliance of the judgment be made within three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.S/4.