State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. versus
Gian Chand & ors.
LPA No.147 of 2024
28.06.2024 Present: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional
Advocate General, for the
appellants.
Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate, for
the respondents.
Compliance affidavit along with
consideration order dated 21.06.2024, stands filed
by Director Health Services, Himachal Pradesh,
wherein, he has concluded that case of the
appellants is not similar to case decided in CWP
No.7359 of 2021, titled Amita Gupta versus State
of H.P. & ors., mainly on the ground that petitioner
in Amita Gupta’s case was extended benefit of
2-tier pay scale at later stage from the
retrospective date and subsequently her pay was
re-fixed in the higher pay scale after her retirement
in the pre-revised pay scale, whereas in present
case, appellants are claiming benefit of revised
leave encashment in the revised pay scale in terms
of Notification of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services
(Revised Pay) Rules, 2022, notified by Notification
dated 03.01.2022.
2. The facts itself clearly indicate that in
both cases issue involved is common that whether
an employee/retiree is entitled for revised leave
encashment on the basis of pay scale re-fixed from
the retrospective date either on extension of benefit
of 2-tier pay scale or on revision of pay scale.
Therefore, it does not make any difference as to
whether benefit of higher pay scale is extended on
account of 2-tier pay scale from retrospective date
or revision of pay scale from retrospective date
because in both cases pay scale is revised or
re-fixed from the retrospective date as per
entitlement.
3. Leave encashment in terms of Rule 39 of
CCS (Leave) Rules is to be calculated on the basis
of last pay admissible to the employee on the date
of retirement.
4. In case pay admissible to the retiree
from the date of retirement is enhanced either on
the basis of re-fixation on account of 2-tier pay
scale or on revision of pay scale, it makes no
difference because leave enchashment is to be
counted on the basis of pay admissible to the
retiree on the last date of retirement.
5. Therefore, differentiation between Amita
Gupta’s case and present case is superfluous and
misconceived, and thus, conclusion arrived at by
Director Health Services, is contrary to the verdict
of the Court and, therefore, he is directed to
reconsider the matter in light of ratio of the
judgment in Amita Gupta’s case read with Rule 39
of CCS (Leave) Rules.
6. Compliance affidavit be filed within two
weeks.
List for consideration on 23.07.2024.
(Vivek Singh Thakur)
Judge
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
June 28, 2024
(Shivender)