LPA No. 588 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- LPA No. 588 of 2009 Date of decision: July 10, 2009 Zile Singh ........ Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. H N Khanduja, Advocate for the appellant -.- Adarsh Kumar Goel , J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgement dated 19.05.2009, dismissing the writ petition for claim of addition of 40 days while calculating the benefits of earned leave. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that earned leave related to years 1974, 1976, 1977 and 1986, while the petition was filed in the year 2008. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that dispute of leave encashment arose only after the retirement of the appellant in the year 2007 and , thus, it should have been considered on merits. We have also heard learned counsel for the appellant. In the reply filed by the District Education officer, Panipat, it has been explained that earned leave during vacation were admissible only to the employee, who was prevented full vacation in proportion mentioned in Rule LPA No. 588 of 2009 2 8.116 and 8.117 of the Punjab Civil Services Volume I Part I. The factual aspect of the case of the appellant has been explained as under:- “In this case, the petitioner had joined service in the respondent department on 16.12.1972 and had attended the training camps during the period from 10.06.1974 to 29.06.1974 to 29.06.1974 (20 days), 02.06.1976 to 21.06.1976 (20 days) and 16.06.1977 to 05.07.1977 (20 days) when his service was less than then years. The period of full vacation was 60 days in each of said years. Thus, the earned leaves are to be calculated by multiplying the days of camps attended by 15 days (vide 8.117 (b) (i) divided by 60). Hence, the petitioner has earned 20 x 15/60 = 5 days in year 1974, 1976 and 1977 each and total number of leave earned during above years comes to 15 days. The learned leaves are not admissible where the period of camp is less than 15 days as per the instructions Annexure P-7. Therefore, he is not entitled to earned leave for attending the camp during the period from 17.06.1986 to 20.06.1986 (10 days).” The above explanation given on behalf of the Department could not be controverted by the appellant. Thus, even on merits, the appellant does not have any case. Dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge July 10, 2009 mohan