2025:HHC:1833 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1385 of 2024 Decided on: 08.01.2025 Arjun Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2- State. Mr. Ayush Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing respondents to make the payment towards leave encashment to the petitioner. ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the entire payment towards leave enashment along with interest @ 9% per annum.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the prayer being made by the petitioner in the petition is squarely covered not only in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Non- Government Affiliated Colleges Grant-in-Aid Rules 1994, but also by the order dated 05.09.2022, that has been passed in Review Petition No.22 of 2020 read with order dated 10.09.2020, passed in Review Petition No.22 of 2020, in which, it has been settled that as far as 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:1833 the leave encashment is concerned, the liability of the State is to the extent of 95% and that of the private institution is to the extent of 5%. 3. A perusal of Rule, 6 of the Himachal Pradesh Non- Government Affiliated Colleges Grant-in-Aid Rules 1994 demonstrates that Grant-in-Aid is inclusive of the teaching as well as non-teaching posts approved by the Government. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was serving against a teaching post in the private institution, which was not approved by the Government. Findings returned in Review Petition could not be denied by the respondents. 4. That being so, petitioner is held entitled for the relief prayed for. Therefore, in this view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to pay admissible leave encashment to the petitioner within a period of three months from today, 95% of which shall be borne by the State and 5% by the private institution. In case the due and admissible amount is not paid within the said period, the same shall entail interest @6% per annum from the date of judgment. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge January 08, 2025 (Rishi)