Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Haribhai Ganpatbhai Rana on 1 February, 2021
Bench: Mr. Justice Nath, Ashutosh J. Shastri
C/LPA/121/2021 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 121 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6919 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 121 of 2021
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 122 of 2021
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7933 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 122 of 2021
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7933 of 2019
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
HARIBHAI GANPATBHAI RANA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DHARMESH DEVNANI, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1,2
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Date : 01/02/2021
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH)
1. Heard Mr.Dharmesh Devnani, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the appellantState.
2. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ
petition filed by the respondent claiming the
benefits of payment of leave encashment of 300 days.
Operative portion of the judgment of the learned
Single Judge reads as follows :
C/LPA/121/2021 ORDER
"6. In view of the above position of facts and
law, the present petition deserves to be
allowed. The respondents are directed to extend
the benefits of payment of leave encashment of
300 days to the petitioner on his retirement, as
the denial of this benefit is held to be
illegal. The leave encashment for 300 days to
the petitioner shall be paid considering the
total length of the services of the petitioner
within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of writ of this order.
7. The petition is allowed accordingly to the
aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute in the
said terms."
3. Before us, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader Mr.Devnani submitted that no liberty has been
given to the State to examine as to whether or not
the petitioner (the respondent in these appeals) 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 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.
C/LPA/121/2021 ORDER
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
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).
7. In case, the respondents feel aggrieved by this
order, they would be free to apply for recall of this
order.
8. With the above modification, the appeals are
disposed of. Consequently, connected civil
applications for stay are disposed of.
(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)
(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
