2026:HHC:14411 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6 461 of 2026 Decided on : 04 .05.2026 _______________________________________________________________ Gopal Krishan Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents _______________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Sourabh Katoch, Advocate, vice, Ms. Vandana Misra, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) On the last date of hearing, notices were issued to the respondents, which were duly accepted by them and it was specifically observed that the issue raised in the petition is covered by the decision passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 05.01.2026, in CWP No.21254 of 2025, titled, Ashok Kumar vs. State of H.P. and another, a/w connected matter. 2. Learned counsel representing respondents No.2 to 4 had prayed for time to have instructions in the matter on the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:14411 last date of hearing and today he has prayed that he may be granted time to file reply to the petition. However, keeping in view the fact that the similar issue has already been adjudicated by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, coupled with the fact that the respondents have not denied the benefits to be paid to the petitioner after his retirement, as evident from perusal of Annexure P-3 dated 16.04.2026, there is no need to call for the reply. The only reason, which has been assigned in Annexure P-3, is that the university has been experiencing severe financial constraints over the past year, primarily due to limited availability of funds. Such plea cannot be countenanced by this Court, in view of the fact that the retiral benefits of an employee is on account of the services rendered by him and the same are not bounty. 3. From the pleadings in the writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner had joined the respondent-University and after rendering more than 36 years of continuous, unblemished and satisfactory service, stood retired on 31.08.2024. The petitioner has been issued Pension Payment Order dated 03.10.2024, pursuant to which, pension and gratuity have been released to him. The only amount, which is due and payable to him, is with respect to the leave encashment. 3 2026:HHC:14411 4. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.21254 of 2025, titled, Ashok Kumar vs. State of H.P. and another, a/w connected matter, decided on 05.01.2026, had disposed of the petitions directing the respondents to release the admissible leave encashment due to the petitioner(s), within six weeks from the date of passing the judgment, failing which, the amount shall carry interest @5% per annum from the actual due date. The relevant para of the judgment reads as under:- “4. In view of above submissions, these writ petitions are disposed of with direction to the respondents to release the admissible leave encashment due to the petitioner(s) within six weeks from today, failing which, the amount shall carry interest @5% per annum from the actual due date. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of.” 5. In view of the aforementioned facts, respondents No.2 to 4-University are directed to release the amount of admissible leave encashment to the petitioner within six weeks from today, failing which, the amount shall carry interest @5% per annum from the actual due date. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 04 th May , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge