®Q& wkwF ’IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.p. (S) No. 2w OF‘ 2010 I WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 [227 OF THE CONSTITUTION i OF INDIA 1 PETITIONER(S) /. . P. K. Sharma, aged about 63 years, S/o. Late Shri D. N. Sharma, \ Occupation —f Superintendent (Retired) office of District Education Officer, At i present R/o.§Govt. Quarter, 4/4, 27, _ Kholi, Vikas Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil 85 Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ' VERSUS ! RESPONDENTS 71. State of Chhattisgarh, through its i Secretary, Education Depaxtment, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, v Tahsil 8n Distt. Raipur (C.G.) The Joint Director, Treasury, , Accounts 85 Pension, Bilaspur, Tahsil & Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) The District Education Officer, Korba, Tahsii 85 Distt. Korba (C.G.) HIGH COURT OF CHHATT§SGAR BILASPUR WR§T PETITION (S) NO 273 F 2010 (W i Petition under Amcles 226/22? of the fZonstltutlon 0f lndla) Smgie Bench Han ble $hn Swsh K Agmhmn J Presem :- Shn Vmod Deshmukh counsei fortiiie petitioner hnYS Thaku D" Ad" Genara!‘er:b “ta!“ ORDER (ORAL) i (Passed ari this 21" day of January, 201 0) With the consent of teamed counset appeannq for the Dames the petition is heard finaHy 'Leamed counsei appearing for the peiitioner submiis that ieave ~‘ encashment in favour of the petitioner has peen sanctioned by order dated 21-6 2GO6 (Annexure — PM) for a penod of 240 days by the , ‘i District Education Offcer‘ Korba.-. Despite the sanction of ieave l fencashm'ent; no payment hasbeen made tit! date; Learned counsel gfurther submits thatthe petitioner has retired as Offce Superintendent from the oft‘ce of District Education Oifcer Korba Thereafter no ’ order has been passed either to amend the order dated 21-6-2006 or canceiing the same Accordingly, the petitioner has been denied the benefit of ieave encashment for the last more than 31/2 years _ Havang regard to the facts as aforestated the respondent authorities i are directed to ensure grant of payment to the petitioner as per the ”order dated 21-6 2606 in respect of payment of leave encashment v prepared by the District Education Officer Korba Within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order rf there is no other order modifying or repealing the order dated 21 6-2006 Smce the payment has been delayed not on account of fautt on the part of the petitioner but on account of fauit of other officers, the petitioner shalt be entitied to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of sanction order titi the payment is made to the petitioner 4 With the aforesaid observations and directions the wrrt petition is i disposed of at the motion stage itself. . PETlTlONER P.K. Sharma Versus RESPoNDENE State of Chhattisgarh & Others