Chattisgarh High Court

Mahangu Ram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 March, 2025

                                                         1




RAVI
        Digitally
        signed by
        RAVI
        SHANKAR
                                                                         2025:CGHC:10525
SHANKAR MANDAVI
MANDAVI Date:
        2025.03.18
        18:01:48
        +0530


                                                                                      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.)

                     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).

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

"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

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

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.

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