Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.03.18 18:01:48 +0530 2025:CGHC:10525 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1581 of 2025 1 - Mahangu Ram Sahu S/o Surajbhan Sahu Aged About 62 Years Retired Chowkidar, Vidyut/ Yantriki/ Light/ Machinery, Nalkoop And Gate Division, Water Resources Department, Division - Durg (C.G.), R/o Village And Post - Balod, Ward No.-1, Par Ras, Balod, District - Balod (C.G.) 2 - Manohar Lal S/o Tejram Deshmukh Aged About 77 Years Retired Nalkoop Chalak, Vidyut/ Yantriki/ Light/ Machinery, Nalkoop And Gate Division, Water Resources Department, Division - Durg (C.G.), R/o Village- Pirit, Post- Chouren, Tehsil- Gunderdehi, Distt.- Balod (C.G.) 3 - Udhoram S/o Gwaluram Sinha Aged About 62 Years Retired As Gangman Labour, Water Resources Department, Balod, Distt.- Balod (C.G.), R/o Village- Kotera, Post-Sambalpur, Distt.- Balod (C.G.) 4 - Girja Bai W/o Bhagat Ram Nishad Aged About 72 Years Retired As Gangman Labour, Water Resources Department, Balod, Distt.- Balod (C.G.), R/o Village And Post- Badgaon, Distt.- Balod (C.G.) 5 - Tameshwar Singhare S/o Late Kejuram Aged About 44 Years (Father Retired As Gangman Labour), Water Resources Department, Balod, Distt.- Balod (C.G.), R/o Village- Kherathadih, Post- Tarod, Distt.- Balod (C.G.)
Legal Reasoning
by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No.3870 of 2021 (Faguvaram Patel & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) and other connected matters decided on 30.09.2022, the petitioners are entitled for leave encashment. 4. Learned State counsel submits that sufficient documents have not been filed by the petitioners and it is also not reflected as to whether the petitioners have completed the minimum period of service to avail the benefit of leave encashment. 6 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available in record. 6. Be that as it may, without commenting anything on the merits, this petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to make detailed representation before the concerned respondent/competent authority within the period of ‘30 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order with all necessary documents to substantiate their claim. In the event of filing of representation, on due verification, if the petitioners are found to be similarly situated persons, as in the case of Faguvaram Patel (surpa), their claim shall be decided by the respondents in light of judgment of Faguvaram Patel (Supra) expeditiously preferably within the period of ‘90 days’ from the date of submission of their said representation. 7. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi
Arguments
6 - Smt. Premwati W/o Late Shri Goluram @ Pekhanlal Aged About 42 Years (Husband Retired As Gangman Labour), Water Resources Department, Balod, Distt.- Balod (C.G.), R/o Village And Post - Badgaon, Distt.- Balod (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) 2 versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer In Chief Water Resources Department, Shiv Nath Bhawan, Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Executive Engineer (M.L/ M) Water Resources Department, Vidyut/ Yantriki, Nalkoop Evam Gate Division- Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 4 - Executive Engineer (M.L/ M) Water Resources Department, Vidyut/ Yantriki, Nalkoop Evam Gate Division - Balod, District - Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Additional AG Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 04/03/2025 1. Heard Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Vivek Sharma, Additional Advocate General for State/respondent/s. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs: “10.1 It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order and direct the respondents to grant leave encashment and surrender leave to the petitioners with interest in view of the order dated 30.09.2022 in WPS no. 3870/2021 Faguvaram Patel & ors. Vs State of CG & ors). 3 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners or their father/husband were the employees of work charged and Contingency paid establishment, having been appointed as daily wager and thereafter attained the status of temporary employee in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employee Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1977 in respondents' department. The Petitioner No.1 was regularized on 18.08.2008 and retired on 31.01.2025, the petitioner No.2 was appointed/engaged on 25.01.1988 and retired on 31.03.2006, the petitioner No.3 was appointed/engaged/regularised in August 2008 and retired on30.11.2024, the petitioner No.4 was initially appointed on 20.08.2008 and retired on 31.10.2014, the father of the petitioner No.5 was engaged/regularised on 20.08.2008 and retired on 30.06.2022, thereafter died on 17.01.2025, the husband of the petitioner No.6 was engaged/regularized on 20.08.2008 and retired on 30.11.2015 thereafter died on 15.09.2017. The leave benefits of the petitioners are governed by the Madhya Pradesh Work-Charged/Contingency Paid Employees Leave Rules, 1977 (herein after the Rules, 1977) which has been made by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh and has been adopted by the State of Chhattisgarh under the exercise of power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 2(i) defines 4 "Employee" means an employee who is a member of the M.P. Work charged and Contingency Paid Employees Service of any department. Rule 2(ii) defines "Employee having permanent status" means an employee who is eligible for the status of a permanent employee under the M.P. Work charged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules of department. Rule 2(iii) defines "Continuous Service" include periods spent on duty as well as on earned leave. Rule 3 defines 'Right to Leave' as the leave cannot be claimed as a right. Discretion is reserved to the authority empowered to grant leave to refuse or revoke leave at any time according to the exigencies of public service. Rule 4 states 'Earned Leave' shall be admissible to an employee having permanent status at the rate of 20 days and to an employee not having such status at the rate of 10 days in a year on the continuous service rendered by him immediately to the commencement of the leave subject to a maximum accumulation at a time to 120 days leave in case of permanent employees and 30 days leave in case of temporary employees. Rule 7 deals with 'Leave Salary' which provides that an employee on earned leave shall be entitled to leave salary equal to the rate of pay or salary which has been drawn for the month immediately prior to the month in which the leave is taken. It is further argued that vide Circular dated 21.06.1989 the State of Madhya Pradesh Finance Department has clarified that the State has restored the benefits of the leave encashement and surrender 5 leave to Work Charged / Contingency Paid employees provided vide circular dated 30.11.1983 which was stopped by the State on 2nd March, 1987. The Circular dated 21.06.1989 has never been withdrawn by the State Government. Therefore, the Work Charged /Contingency Paid employees are entitled to get the benefit of leave encashement and surrender leave. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that from bare perusal of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1977 it is quite vivid that leave encashment is part of the salary, therefore, leave credited in the account of the Work Charged / Contingency Paid employees deserve to get encashment. As the petitioners are entitled for benefits of leave encashment, as there is no prohibition in release of leave encashment amounts to petitioners under the Rules, therefore, leave credited in the account of the work charged/contingency paid employees deserved to get encashment. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in the light of judgment passed