Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010014702026 2026:GAU-AS:5403 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1027/2026 PARAMESH CHANDRA ROY AND 4 ORS S/O LATE DEBENDRA NATH ROY, RETD. CRCC AND H/T OF 1690 NO.SATBAINI L.P. SCHOOL, VILLAGE.- KALADOBA PT. II, P.O. AND P.S.- AGOMANI, DIST DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN 783335 2: KAMAL CHANDRA ROY S/O LATE KAMINI CHANDRA ROY RETD. CRCC AND H/T OF SIMANTA BIDYANIKETAN M.E. SCHOOL VILL.- GOLAKGANJ P.O. AND P.S- GOLAKGANJ DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 783334 3: SUDHIR KUMAR BHAKAT S/O LATE KHAGENDRA NATH BHAKAT RETD. CRCC AND H/T OF 2032 NOTUMBAGAN L.P. SCHOOL VILLAGE- KURSHAKATI P.O.- MOLANDUBI P.S- KAZIGAON DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 783334 4: GUNAMAYI RAY W/O LATE NAGENDRA NATH ROY RETD. CRCC AND H/T OF 784 NO. BISKURAPALLI MANGAL L.P. SCHOOL VILL- UJAN PETLA PT-1 P.O.- UJAN PETLA P.S. -TAMARHAT DIST-DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 783332. Page No.# 2/7 5: AKHLIMA KHATUN W/O- LATE ABDUS SATTAR SARKAR RETD. CRCC AND H/T OF 567 NO. KALDOBA L.P. SCHOOL VILL- BHAMANDANGA P.O.- KHERBARI P.S. AGOMANI DIST-DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 78333 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 11 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE ESTT.-A DEPARTMENT ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 4:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMEMTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER DHUBRI P.O. AND DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783301 6:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS DHUBRI P.O. AND DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783301 7:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER AGOMANI P.O. AND P.S.- AGOMANI Page No.# 3/7 DIST-DHUBRI PIN 783335. 8:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER GOLAKGANJ P.O. AND P.S.- GOLAKGANJ DIST-DHUBRI PIN 783334. 9:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS GOSSAIGAON P.O.- GOSSAIGAON DIST- KOKRAJHAR BTAD 10:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER PARBATJHARA DIST- KOKRAJHAR BTAD 11:THE DISTRICT MISSION CO ORDINATOR SSA (SARBA SIKHSA ABHIJAN) ASSAM P.O-DHUBRI DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783301 12:THE DISTRICT MISSION CO ORDINATOR SSA (SARBA SIKHSA ABHIJAN) KOKRAJHAR BTA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P DAIMARY, MS. N M LONGKENG,J MEDHI,R BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, SC, SSA,SC, BTADC,SC, FINANCE BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 20/04/2026 Heard Mr. J Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B Talukdar, learned Standing counsel, Elementary Education Department, Page No.# 4/7 appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8; Mr. H Baruah, learned Standing counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. B Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent Nos. 2 & 11 and Ms. B Bora, learned Standing counsel, BTADC, for respondent Nos. 9, 10 and 12. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they are Headmasters in their respective L.P. Schools/M.E. Schools and they have also been deputed to work as CRCCs by the Government and thereafter, they were released from CRCC and again joined their respective schools and retired from their services. 3. The grievance of the petitioners, herein, is that the petitioners, being belonging to the vacation department, have not been given the entitlement to leave encashment to the extent of 300 days, which have otherwise, been given to the employees of non-vacation department. 4. The petitioners in the writ petition have projected that although, they were, individually, entitled to be authorised Leave Encashment benefit for 300 days, they were authorised such benefits for lesser no. of days. The petitioners have in paragraph-3 of the writ petition set out the details of the Leave Encashment benefit authorised to them as follows: Sl. No. Name of the Petitioners Date of retirement Maximum Limit as per rules Already Sanctioned Balance Sanction 1. Paramesh Chandra Roy 31.03.2022 300 267 33 2. Kamal Chandra Roy 31.01.2024 300 285 15 Page No.# 5/7 3. Sudhir Chandra Roy 31.05.2010 300 148 152 4. Gunamayi Ray 31.01.2011 300 155 145 5. Akhlima Khatun 31.10.2006 300 162 138 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners have drawn the attention of this Court to a judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Khagendra Nath Deka & Others Vs. State of Assam & Others, reported in (2011) 5 GLT 9, wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, has specifically dealt with the said issue. 6. I have perused the said judgment and the reasoning in the said judgment appears from the paragraph Nos.27 to 29, which is reproduced hereinbelow:- “27) In the above context, while it is important to bear in mind the resources of the State, it cannot be overlooked that recommendation was made by an expert body like Anomaly Committee, for raising the limit of earned leave benefits to 300 days to make it at par with the non-vacation department employees and this recommendation has been accepted by the State Govt., as can be seen from the Notification dated 19.2.2011. Therefore, it is apparent that financial stringency has not be considered to be a relevant factor by the State Govt. for accepting the recommendation of the Pay Anomaly Committee. The only thing is that encashment of earned leave benefit for 300 days has been extended w.e.f. 1.1.2011. 28) In order to answer as to whether the maximum permissible days should be at par with non-vacation department employees, it would useful to examine once again the Govt. Notification of 19.7.1978. In the said Notification, no distinction is made of employees of the vacation and non-vacation department and the benefit of cash equivalent of unutilized leave credit, was given to all categories of State Govt. employees. Whether the examples cited by the petitioners, of benefits being granted to the retired ME school teachers and High Court employees (both vacation department employees) are on the basis of the said Govt. Notification dated Page No.# 6/7 19.7.1978, is not clearly discernible. But in the absence o f any other documents which permits leave encashment benefits to the State Govt. employees (barring the Notification dated 19.7.1978), it would be fair to assume that employees in the vacation department were also conferred similar benefits at par with their brothers in the non-vacation department and that is how the benefits was granted to them, in the cases of vacation establishment employees, cited by the petitioners. 29) That apart, since encashment benefits to retired employees of the vacation department is limited to 300 days, the cash outflow from the State coffer is not unlimited. When vacation is availed by employees of a vacation department, they shall not be entitled to any leave encashment benefit for the availed vacation. But that does not mean that when the earned leave at the permissible rate of 10 days are in the credit of the retiring vacation department employee, there is no reasonable basis for restricting the leave encashment benefits to any lesser days, than what is available to a non-vacation department employee.” 7. On the basis of the said reasoning, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that there were enough justification to allow the writ petition, thereby, setting aside and quashing the Office Memorandum dated 21.08.2000 and the Office Memorandum dated 11.12.2006. This Court further directed the respondents to take into account the earned leave in the credit of the petitioners and to grant them the leave encashment benefit to the extent of permissible days at the relevant time for the employees in the non-vacation department. Further to that, taking into account that the petitioners, therein, had retired from service long back, the respondents were further directed to carry out the necessary exercise to grant the leave encashment benefit to the petitioners expeditiously and preferably, within a period 6 (six) months from the date of the said judgment. 8. Taking into account the facts as well as the issue involved in the instant case being similar to the case involved in the case of Khagendra Nath Deka (supra), this Court is also of the opinion that the law as laid down by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the said judgment has to be applied to the facts of the instant case. Page No.# 7/7 9. In view of the above discussion, this Court directs the respondent authorities to verify the entitlement of the petitioners in respect to their earned leave encashment benefit by taking into account that the petitioners, being in the vacation department, would also be entitled to the upper limit of 300 days on account of leave encashment benefit as have been allowed to the non- vacation department. On such verification being made, the petitioners, being found to have earned leave at their credit up to 300 days, the respondent authorities shall release to the petitioners their respective Leave Encashment benefits, for the remaining days. 10. The said verification, computation and disbursement shall be carried out within a period of 3 (three) months from the date a certified copy of the instant order, is served upon the Director of Elementary Education Department. 11. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant