IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.377 of 2009 Date of decision : 21.03.2011 Shiv Kumar … Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.R.K.Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab. Permod Kohli, J. Petitioner retired from service as Science Master on 30.6.2006 on attaining the age of superannuation. It is stated that the petitioner was prevented from availing full vacations as per letter dated 3.5.2005 (Annexure P-1) whereby he was required to perform the duty in the Computer Lab of the school under I.C.T. Project. In this letter, it is further mentioned that Lab will remain operational for 04 days a week i.e. from Monday to Thursday. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has performed the duty during summer vacation and thus, he is entitled to the earned leave during the year 2005 in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8.117. The relevant extract of the rule is reproduced hereunder:- “8.116.(a) Earned leave is not admissible to a Government employee serving in a vacation department in respect of duty performed in any year in which he avails himself to the full vacation. (b) The earned leave admissible to such Government employee in respect of any year in which he is prevented from availing himself of the full vacation is such proportion of the following periods as the number of days of vacation not taken bears the full vacation:- (i) to a Government employee with 10 years service or less, 15 dyas. (ii) to a Government employee with more than ten years service but not exceeding 20 years service; 20 days CWP No.377 of 2009 2 (iii) to a Government employee with over 20 years service; 30 days. (c) Vacation may be taken in combination with or in continuation of any kind of leave under the rules in this section; provided that the total duration of vacation and earned leave taken in conjunction, whether the earned leave is taken in combination with or in continuation of other leave or not, shall not exceed the amount of earned leave due and admissible to the government employee at a time under rule 8.1116. Provided further that the total duration of vacation, earned leave and commuted leave taken in conjunction shall not exceed (240 days.” Petitioner has put more than 24 years of service at the relevant time and according to the aforesaid rules, he was entitled to the benefit of 30 days earned leave. Though, reply has been filed, however additional affidavit was filed by Dharam Singh, District Education Officer (S.E.) Ropar on 27.9.2010 wherein, it is specifically admitted that petitioner performed duty during summer vacation w.e.f. 16.5.2005 to 14.6.2005 and 29.6.2005 to 30.6.2005. It is further submitted that petitioner was present in the school from 10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. Learned State counsel submits since the petitioner was required to attend the Computer Lab for 04 days a week from 10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. as per letter dated 3.5.2005 (Annexure P-1), he was not entitled to the benefit of earned leave as claimed. This submission is totally contrary to the additional affidavit filed by the respondents. Even though in the Annexure P-1, the petitioner was required to perform duty from Monday to Thursday, it seems that actually he performed duty throughout the week as is evident from the additional affidavit wherein performance of duty by the petitioner by period of one month w.e.f. 16.5.2005 to 14.6.2005 and 29.6.2005 to 30.6.2005 is specifically mentioned. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant the benefit of earned leave to the petitioner in terms of Rule 8.1117(b) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( Permod Kohli ) Judge 21.03.2011 sd 2 CWP No.377 of 2009 3 3