CWP-24543-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 107 CWP-24543-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.08.2026 Sunder Lal Singla ....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer-cum-District Judge, Rohtak and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Sandeep Singal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. Amit Rao, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned judgment dated 27.05.2026 (Annexure P-8) whereby the appeal dated 19.05.2023 (Annexure P-5) filed by the petitioner seeking release of his leave encashment amount has been dismissed. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, thereby allowing the aforementioned appeal dated 19.05.2023 (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner and further direct the respondents to release the leave encashment amount equivalent to the unutilized earned leaves to the credit of the petitioner with upto date interest @ 18% per annum on arrears thereof. MOHD YAKUB 2026.08.11 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-24543-2026 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, contended that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on 29.09.1969 and, after rendering about 36 years of service, he was compulsorily retired from the post of Deputy Superintendent with effect from 31.07.2005. It is contended that under the Haryana Government Instructions dated 13.02.1978 and the Notification dated 12.08.1998, an employee retiring from service is entitled to cash equivalent of unutilised earned leave up to a maximum of 300 days. Since more than 300 days of earned leave were available to the credit of the petitioner at the time of his retirement, he claims entitlement to leave encashment. It is further argued that the controversy involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP-25727-2016 and connected matters, titled as Jasmer Singh v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 02.05.2019 (Annexure P-4). Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that while rejecting the petitioner's claim, the learned Educational Tribunal erroneously relied upon the Haryana Affiliated Aided Technical Institutions (Pension and CPF) Rules, 2005, although the petitioner had retired on 31.07.2005, prior to the enforcement thereof. According to the petitioner, his claim ought to have been examined in the light of the Haryana Government Instructions dated 13.02.1978 and the clarification dated 08.06.2012 (Annexure P-3). It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the petitioner be granted the relief claimed. MOHD YAKUB 2026.08.11 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-24543-2026 3 3. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 have opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned State counsel has argued that the petitioner's reliance upon the clarification dated 08.06.2012 (Annexure P-3) is wholly misconceived. The said clarification was issued only in respect of Government Polytechnics at Lisana, Loharu, Uttawar, Nathusri, Chopta, Manesar, Morni, Sanghi, Cheeka, Sampla, Narwana and Meham, whereas the petitioner had served the respondent No.5, which is a private aided affiliated college. It is further submitted that the petitioner retired on 31.07.2005 but he chose to approach the learned Educational Tribunal only in the year 2023, after an unexplained delay of about 17 years. It is also pointed out that the Government decisions dated 25.05.2021 and 02.07.2021 extended the benefit of leave encashment only to employees of aided polytechnic colleges retiring after the prescribed cut-off date. Since the petitioner retired prior thereto, he is not entitled to the said benefit. Accordingly, it is contended that the learned Educational Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by passing a well-reasoned order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. 5. The case of the petitioner hinges upon the clarification dated 08.06.2012 (Annexure P-3) issued by the Director General, Technical Education, Haryana. A plain reading of the said clarification shows that it was specifically addressed to the Principals of Government MOHD YAKUB 2026.08.11 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-24543-2026 4 Polytechnics situated at Lisana, Loharu, Uttawar, Nathusri, Chopta, Manesar, Morni, Sanghi, Cheeka, Sampla, Narwana and Meham. The clarification dealt with pensionary issues and stipulated that the employees appointed after 01.01.2006 would be governed by the New Pension Scheme. The said clarification further provides that the employees recruited prior to 01.01.2006 would continue to be governed by the Old Pension Scheme. Paragraph 4 thereof clarifies that leave encashment forms part of salary and the requisite budgetary provision is to be made under the head "Salary" during the financial year in which the employee retires. It is, however, an admitted position that the petitioner retired from respondent No.5, which is a private aided affiliated college and not from any of the Government Polytechnics to which the aforesaid clarification was addressed. 6. Further, the reliance of the petitioner placed upon the judgment in Jasmer Singh's case (supra) is totally misplaced. In the said case, this Court noticed that vide Government letter dated 14.08.2018, the benefit of leave encashment had been extended to employees of Government Aided Private Colleges at par with their counterparts serving in Government colleges and leave encashment was directed to be calculated in accordance with the Government instructions issued from time to time. The petitioner's case stands on an altogether different footing. It is also significant to note that although the petitioner retired on 31.07.2005, he did not raise any grievance regarding leave encashment for almost 17 years and instituted the MOHD YAKUB 2026.08.11 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-24543-2026 5 appeal only in the year 2023 seeking the aforesaid benefit. The relief sought by the petitioner before the learned Educational Tribunal reads as under: "Appeal for directing the respondents to release the leave encashment along with interest @ 18% per annum with all consequential benefits in accordance with notification dated 13.02.1978 as well as Additional Chief Secretary letter dated 02.07.2021 from the date of retirement till realization by setting aside DTE letter No. E/16(150)/2021/200-03/Aided dated 25.08.2021 read with substituted letter dated 15.03.2022." 7. In the written statement (Annexure P-6) filed by respondents No.1 and 2, before the learned Educational Tribunal specifically pleaded as under: 5. That a perusal of letter dated 02.07.2021 (Annexure R-1) shows that pursuant to the approval granted by the Finance Department vide letter dated 25.05.2021, employees working in Government Aided Polytechnics became entitled to the benefit of leave encashment. 6. That the benefit of leave encashment has been extended only to those employees who retired on or after 31.12.2005. The appellant was compulsorily retired with effect from 31.07.2005 vide order No.1083/05 dated 29.07.2005 under Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I, as applicable to the State of Haryana, and is, therefore, not entitled to the said benefit. 8. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid pleadings clearly establishes that the benefit of leave encashment was extended only to MOHD YAKUB 2026.08.11 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-24543-2026 6 those employees who have been retired on or after 31.12.2005. The petitioner admittedly retired on 31.07.2005, i.e., prior to the cut-off date and has failed to demonstrate the applicability of the subsequent Government instructions to his case. Moreover, the specific stand taken by the respondents in their written statement remained unrebutted as no replication was filed by the petitioner. In these circumstances, no error of jurisdiction, illegality or perversity can be found in the well-reasoned order passed by the learned Educational Tribunal warranting interference of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Consequently, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed. 10. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 07.08.2026 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MOHD YAKUB 2026.08.11 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.