2026:HHC:10040 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7363 of 2024 Decided on: 02.04.2026 Sh. Shyam Lal … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Devender Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2-State. Dr. Nidhi Singh and Mr. Anshul Gandhi, Advocates, for respondent No.3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following relief:- “i). Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to implement vide its office order dated 23.02.2024 (Annexure P-3) and pay the arrears of revised leave encashment amounting to Rs.4,41,791/- along with interest @ 9% per annum in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. The controversy involved in this case is in a very narrow compass. In terms of Annexure P-3, though an amount of Rs.4,41,791/- has been calculated as leave encashment payable to the petitioner but actually the petitioner has been paid only Rs.25,512/- and has not been paid the balance of Rs.4,41,791/-. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:10040 4. The stand of the respondents is evident from para-4 of the reply filed to the writ petition by respondent No. 3, which reads as under:- “4. That in reply to the contents of para 4 of the petition, it is submitted that revised leave encashment of un-utilized revised earned leave amounting to Rs. 4,41,791/- was sanctioned vide order dated 23-02-2024 by the Executive Engineer, Shimla Division, Kasumpti erroneously. As per Office Memorandum No. Fin(C)A(3)-1/2014 dated 6th July 2020 enclosed herewith as Annexure R-3/1 wherein "It is clarified that since the benefit of Earned Leave is not a part of consequential benefits and the said benefit is regularized under separate set of rules i.e. CCS (Leave Rule). There is no such provision in the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 to grant the benefit of earned leave from retrospective date, in such cases where the services of employees are regularized from the retrospective date as a result of Government decision or due to final Court Orders with all consequential benefits, the benefit of accumulation of earned leave from the retrospective date due to regularization in services from the back date is not admissible. Accordingly office order dated 23-02-2024 has been withdrawn by the Executive Engineer, Shimla Division Kasumpti vide order dated 01-08-2024. Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure R-3/2.” 5. It is evident from the reply filed by the respondents that the State is primarily relying upon Annexure R3/1, i.e. office memorandum dated 06.07.2020, to deny full leave encashment to the petitioner as same is “consequential benefits of the retrospective conferment of work charge status upon the petitioner”. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has 3 2026:HHC:10040 argued that this issue is no more res integra and Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 5043 of 2022, titled as Sunita Sangroli vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 08.08.2023, has been pleased to hold the act of the State of denying the benefit of leave encashment retrospectively to be bad in law and in fact, Hon’ble Coordinate Bench has been pleased to quash the office memorandum dated 06.07.2020 Annexure R3/1. 7. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has been paid what he was entitled to and there is no merit in the present petition. 8. A perusal of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Coordinate Bench demonstrates that the Hon’ble Court was pleased to hold that the entitlement of a Civil Servant to earned leave is warranted under Rule 10 of the All India Service Rules, 1952 and entitlement of a Civil Servant to earned leave starts from the date he or she joins the service, where earned leave is permissible. Hon’ble Coordinate Bench also held that in fact earned leave becomes an incidence of service, a benefit available to the civil servant by virtue of his being appointed to a civil post and therefore, to discriminate between the persons who have received service benefits of regularization etc. from a retrospective date, be it under the orders of the Court or otherwise, vis-à-vis others is clearly discriminatory and without an intelligible differentia. After returning these findings, Hon’ble Coordinate Bench has been pleased to quash memorandum dated 06.07.2020. 4 2026:HHC:10040 9. Therefore, in light of the fact that the office memorandum, reliance being placed whereupon was the foundation of the stand taken by the respondents in the reply, already stands quashed and set aside by the Court, obviously, the respondents can no more rely upon this office memorandum to justify their stand. 10. This Court concurs with the findings returned by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench that the benefit of earned leave cannot be denied to an incumbent simply because the conferment of a status, be it by way of a Court order of otherwise, was given retrospectively. 11. The factum of such a status being conferred upon an incumbent, may be retrospectively, demonstrates one thing that the incumbent was indeed entitled for conferment of said status and it is only because the conferment of status was denied at the appropriate time by the employer that the need so arose either to the Court or to the employer to confer said status retrospectively. 12. Accordingly, in light of above discussion as also the judgment passed by Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sunita Sangroli’s case (supra), this writ petition is allowed and the act of the respondents of not paying to the petitioner the balance of the leave encashment as calculated in terms of office order dated 23.02.2024 (Annexure P-3) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to release the balance of leave encashment amount in favour of the petitioner in terms of Annexure P-3 as expeditiously as possible. In case, balance amount is paid within 5 2026:HHC:10040 three months from today, the same shall not entail any interest, but if it is not paid within three months, then the same shall entail simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 02, 2026 (Rishi)