Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 11252 (UTT)

ASHOK BAJPAI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSB/530/2021 · 2025-05-20

Ashish Naithani, Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:4172-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSB 530/2021 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Kaparuwan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Chandra Vashistha, Standing Counsel, for the State. (2) Petitioner was serving as Deputy Labour Commissioner in the year 2020, when Covid-19 pandemic broke out. It is an admitted position that during the lockdown, imposed by the Central Government, petitioner did not attend his duties and he remained at his home at Dehradun/Rishikesh, while he was posted at Haldwani. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs: “I. To pass a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to immediately release the amount of 40 days of the leave encashment with interest (@ 18% per annum) which is illegally deducted in the light of his services rendered from home during the period of lockdown between 25-03-2020 to 03-05- 2020. II. To pass a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to immediately release the amount of interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of retirement dues paid with the delay on 17-09-2021.” (3) Petitioner relies upon a government policy for claiming leave encashment for the period during which he remained at Dehradun/Rishikesh by contending that he was working from home. 2025:UHC:4172-DB (4) Learned State Counsel relies upon the Govt. Order dated 2.11.2020 for contending that petitioner is not entitled to leave encashment. He, however, submits that if petitioner makes a representation claiming leave encashment to the competent authority, his claim shall be examined in accordance with the government policy. (5) We, accordingly, dispose of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to move representation claiming leave encashment. If petitioner moves representation within three weeks from today, competent authority shall consider the same and take decision thereupon within five months thereafter. (Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 20.05.2025 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE5 3, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.05.20 17:36:32 +05'30' 2025:UHC:4172-DB