A.P.Sahi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE petitioner has come up with a prayer for a mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the petitioner the Leave Encashment benefits as indicated in the order of Executive Engineer dated 12.9.2006, Annexure-4 to the writ petition. It is submitted that entitlement of the petitioner has been found but the same has not been actually paid to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention to the aforesaid order of Executive Engineer which indicates that the Leave Encashment benefits is being sanctioned between the period 1992-99 and action be taken accordingly. The writ petition was entertained where after Affidavits have been filed and a supplementary-counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, to which a reply has been filed by the petitioner. The stand taken by the respondents is that such Leave Encashment benefits could not be paid on account of the financial constraints as indicated in the relevant Government Orders and finally vide Government Order dated 14.6.2000. Clause 2 of the said Government Order which has been filed alongwith the supplementary-counter-affidavit, is quoted below: JUDGEMENT_567_ADJ9_2010Image1.jpg JUDGEMENT_567_ADJ9_2010Image2.jpg
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel, therefore, submits that in view of the aforesaid provision made in the Government Order, the petitioner's relief as prayed for cannot be granted. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the submissions raised, in the absence of any challenge to the Government Order dated 14.6.2000, it is evident that the respondents are bound by clause-2 of the Government Order referred to herein above. There is no Government Order to the contrary nor any Rule has been pointed out which may dissolve the effect of the said Government Order. Accordingly, the relief claimed for making payment to the petitioner cannot be granted. The writ petition lacks merits and is hereby dismissed.;