L.P.A. No. 1103 of 2011 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh L.P.A. No. 1103 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 01, 2011 Mansa Ram and others ---Appellants versus State of Haryana and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr. S.K.Sud, Advocate, for the appellants Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State *** 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.Kumar, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the letters Patent is directed against order dated 29.3.2011 rendered by learned Single Judge holding that the claim for leave encashment to the extent of 300 days could not be accepted because the appellants had retired many years prior to the filing of the petition. According to the learned counsel for the respondents once the petition has been filed after 10-12 years then no direction could be issued particularly when the payment of leave encashment of 240 days was made to each of appellants. Basically, the claim of the appellants has been declined on the ground that there L.P.A. No. 1103 of 2011 -2- was delay and laches in approaching the Court. However, We find that the claim made by the appellants is meritorious because according to Instructions dated 12.8.1998 (P-2), the respondent-State has no business to disburse the leave encashment by confining it to 240 days whereas the Instructions dated 12.8.1998 (P-2) categorically provide for leave encashment for 300 days. According to the Instructions, 300 days leave encashment with effect from 1.7.1998 is to be granted to the following categories of employees:- “i) Retirement on attaining the age of superannuation; (ii)Cases where the service of a Government employees has been extended in the interest of Govt. service, beyond the date of retirement on superannuation. (iii)Voluntary/pre-mature retirement; (iv)Where the services of a Government servant terminated by notice or by payment of allowance in lieu of notice or other in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment. (v)In the case of termination or re-employment/retirement; (vi)In the case of death of a Government employees while in service, to the family of the deceased. (vii)In the case of leave preparatory to retiree (viii)In the case of transfer of a Government servant to an industrial establishment; (ix)On absorption of a Government servant/Central Public Sector Undertaking/ Autonomous body, wholly or substantially owned or control of the Central/State Government. (x)A Government servant who resigns or quit service shall be entitled to cash equivalent of earned leave at credit on the date cession of service, to the extent of his such leave at his credit, L.P.A. No. 1103 of 2011 -3- subject to maximum of 150 days. There will however, be no change in the existing terms and conditions for the grant of this benefit.” 2. The claim made by the appellants in para No. 2 of the appeal is that they had superannuated which would show that they fall in category (i) of the instructions dated 12.8.1998 (P-2). They have also placed reliance on The Municipal Employees Pension and other Provident Funds Rules, 1993 which in turn say that the benefit of pension would be given in accordance with Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume-II as applicable to the State of Haryana and those rules shall mutatis mutandis apply to the appellants. 3. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition on the ground of delay and laches would not be sustainable. In the present case there is no dispute concerning the right to leave encashment. The controversy is only regarding grant of the right namely whether it is for 240 days or 300 days. There are numerous judgments with regard to the point that for pensionary benefits, delay would not intervene for grant of relief by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Savitri Devi Mehta v. Union of India (2005)10 SCC 325 and S.K. Mastan Bee v. General Manager (2003) 1 SCC 184. A Division Bench of this Court in Sanjay Kumar v. State of Haryana (2002) 2 RSJ 601 has held in para 9 as under:- “In so far as the ground of delay and laches in filing the present writ petition is concerned, it is suffice to observe that in matters concerning pension/family pension, the cause of action is continuous one and delay and latches cannot be pleaded to defeat the cause of family pension/pension. Moreover, it is unwarranted L.P.A. No. 1103 of 2011 -4- for the respondent-State to raise such an objection because the State is under a duty to release family pension/pension without forcing the petitioner or any of his family member to approach the Court.” Therefore, we set aside the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 4. In view of the above the appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. A direction is issued to the respondents to consider the cases of the appellants for grant of benefit of additional 60 days leave encashment of unutilized earned leave in the light of the instructions dated 12.8.1998 (P-2). If they are found eligible for this benefit, the same shall be disbursed to them within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE September 01, 2011 PARAMJIT