Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Lakhaji Hajaji Jadeja on 3 February, 2021
Bench: Mr. Justice Nath, Ashutosh J. Shastri
C/LPA/184/2021 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 184 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8946 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 184 of 2021
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
LAKHAJI HAJAJI JADEJA
==========================================================
Appearance:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
for the Respondent(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM
NATH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Date : 03/02/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM
NATH)
1. Heard Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for the appellant-State.
2. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed
by the respondents-writ petitioners 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/184/2021 ORDER
"6. In view of 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
petitioners on their retirement, as the denial of
this benefit is held to be illegal. The leave
encashment for 300 days to the petitioners shall
be paid considering the total length of the services
of the petitioners 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 Ms.
Pathak submitted that no liberty has been given to the
State to examine as to whether or not the petitioners
(respondents 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 petitioners(respondents herein) 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
C/LPA/184/2021 ORDER
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 record
regarding entitlement, we are not issuing notice to the
respondents herein 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,
C/LPA/184/2021 ORDER
respondents herein.
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 appeal is disposed of.
Consequently, connected civil application for stay is
disposed of.
(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)
(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)
A.M. PIRZADA
