HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 14167 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pradeep Tiwari, learned counsel for the District Basic Education Officedr, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the District Basic Education Board, learned counsel for the State and perused the record Present writ petition has been filed with the following main reliefs :- "(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to provide the leave encashment to the petitioner to the period of 300 days along with applicable interest, in the interest of justice. (II) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider and decide the pending representations dated 06.06.2025 addressed to opposite party no. 1 to 5 and to pay the payment of leave encashment of 300 days along with 12% interest from attaining the age of superannuation dated 31.01.2019 within specific period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice. (Contained as Annexure No.4 to this writ petition)." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1977 and he is entitled for leave encashment. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the Judgment and Order dated 16-11-2021 passed by this court in Writ A No. 10788 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Yogesh Kumar Misra, Radhey Shyam, Sharad Kumar Vaish Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pradeep Tiwari, Ran Vijay Singh Prem Narayan .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Shiksha Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) of 2021, Badri Nath Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Others and submitted that the present petitioner is also entitled for the same relief. On the other hand, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the U.P. Basic Education Board, has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the Board has come into play in the year 1972 and the petitioner has been appointed in the year 1977 and there is no provision as such with respect to the leave in any of the law applicable to the employees of the Board. He further argued and tried to distinguish the law rendered in the case of Finance Controller, Basic Shiksha Board Vs Badri Nath Tiwari and Others, Special Appeal No. 702 of 2022, decided on 06-01-2023 and submitted that the respondents-Badri Nath Tiwari and Others, were subsequently appointed in Zila Parishad in various districts and subsequently, they have been merged in the U.P. Basic Education Board and as per the merger condition, the benefits, which were available to those respondents, being the employees in erstwhile department i.e. Zila Parishad was made available to them and therefore, the case of the present petitioner is different than the case of those, in whose favour the order dated 06-01-2023 is passed. Be that as it may, the petitioner is given liberty to move a fresh representation before the opposite party no. 3/ Secretary,. Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Prayagraj within the period of 15 days from today and if such representation is moved, the same shall be considered and decided by the opposite party no. 3 within further period of eight weeks in accordance with law and the observations made hereinabove. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is hereby disposed of. December 9, 2025 AKS WRIA No. 14167 of 2025 2 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench