Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Babarbhai Ambalalbhai Patel on 1 February, 2021
Bench: Ashutosh J. Shastri
C/LPA/161/2021 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 161 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6396 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 161 of 2021
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BABARBHAI AMBALALBHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Appellant No. 1,2,3
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Date : 01/02/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH)
1. Heard Ms.Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the appellantState.
2. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ
petition filed by the respondents 1 and 2 claiming
the benefits of payment of leave encashment of 300
days. Operative portion of the judgment of the
learned Single Judge reads as follows :
"6. In view of the above position of facts and
law, the present petition is allowed in terms of
prayer 10(A) holding the petitioners entitled to
leave encashment for 300 days upon their
retirement. The respondents are directed to pay
the amount arising towards leave encashment and
they are further directed to extent the post
retiral benefits considering the total length of
C/LPA/161/2021 ORDER
service of the petitioners in accordance with
Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988,
if such benefit is yet to be extended to the
petitioners.
7. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid
terms and to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made
absolute accordingly."
3. Before us, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader Ms.Pathak submitted that no liberty has been
given to the State to examine as to whether or not
the petitioners (respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal)
have accumulated the required number of days in their
leave account for purpose of grant of payment of 300
days' leave. Insofar as the entitlement of the
petitionersrespondents 1 and 2 for the benefit of
leave encashment is concerned, there is no issue.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader further
submitted that as there is clear mandamus issued to
the respondents in the petition (appellants herein)
to make payment of leave encashment of 300 days, it
may be inappropriate that without verifying about the
admissibility of the entire period of leave
encashment, amount may be released.
4. To this limited extent, the modification has
been sought.
5. Normally, we would have issued notice to the
respondents in the appeal, but considering the nature
of relief pressed, which appears to be innocuous and
even otherwise it is fair and reasonable that the
State authorities (employers) may verify from the
C/LPA/161/2021 ORDER
record regarding entitlement. We are not issuing
notice to the respondents as apparently no prejudice
would be caused to them by the modification sought.
6. Thus without disturbing the entitlement allowed
by the learned Single Judge, we dispose of this
appeal with the limited modification that before
making the payment, the appellants would verify about
the admissibility of 300 days for conversion into
leave encashment as per the direction given by the
learned Single Judge considering the total length of
the service of the writ petitioners (respondents 1
and 2).
7. In case, the respondents 1 and 2 feel aggrieved
by this order, they would be free to apply for recall
of this order.
8. With the above modification, the appeal is
disposed of. Consequently, connected civil
application for stay is disposed of.
(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)
(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
