1 CGHC010214102022 2026:CGHC:34696 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4873 of 2022 1 - Arundhati Tiwari W/o Shri Guneshwar Tiwari Aged About 67 Years R/o H.No. 29, Simran City Phase -1, Ward No. 29, Mathpuraina, Raipur, District - Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, P.S. And P.O. - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District (C.G.) 3 - Commissioner Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) 4 - Collector Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 5 - District Education Officer Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 6 - Block Education Officer Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ---- Respondents For petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.08.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) : “10.1 Issue appropriate writ/direction to the respondents for releasing the difference amount of petitioner's retiral dues, within time bound, in the interest of justice. 10.2 To provide compensation and cost of the -2- petition to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. In reply, the State has categorically stated in paragraph 6 that the amount of retiral dues has already been paid to the petitioner vide order dated 19.05.2020. 3. Paragraph 6 of the reply is reproduced herein below : “6.That, the contents of these paragraphs are denied to the extent they are contrary to the stand taken by the answering respondents. It is submitted that the petitioner was working as a Teacher in the Respondent Department and that she retired from her post on 31.05.2017 on account of the fact that she had attained the age of 62 years. That, at the time of the petitioners retirement 6th pay commission was applicable and in view of the fact that 7th pay commission has been made applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh retrospectively the petitioner became entitled for payment in accordance with the 7th pay commission and thus, she is claiming entitlement for leave encashment of 210 days. It is submitted that the contention of the petitioner that she has not been made payment for leave encashment in accordance with 7th pay commission is mis-founded because the said payment has already ordered on 19/05/2020 and vide establishment pay bill no. 764 dated 20/05/2020 it was released and she has been paid a sum of Rs. 60046. Copy of the order dated 19/05/2020 is marked as Annexure R/1 and Copy of the establishment pay bill dated 20.05.2020 is annexed herewith as Annexure R/2. Also as regards the arrears owing to application of 7th pay commission it is stated that the arrears have been paid on 01.02.2019 vide establishment pay bill no. 764 dated 01.02.2019 as is also evident from the communication made by Office of Block education Officer, Rajnandgaon to DEO Rajnandgaon dated 10.02.2022. Copy of the establishment pay bill no. 764 dated 01.02.2019 is annexed herewith as Annexure R/3 and Copy of communication made by Office of Block education Officer, Rajnandgaon to DEO Rajnandgaon is annexed herewith as Annexure R/4.” 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Having considered the fact that the admissible amount of leave encashment has already been paid to the petitioner, in the opinion 3 of this Court, nothing survives for adjudication. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to revive her prayer, if cause of action still survives. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha