Execuitve Engineer Panchayat vs Vallabhbhai Motibhai Tandel
2021 Latest Caselaw 15030 Guj

     C/LPA/816/2021                                      ORDER DATED: 24/09/2021




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 816 of 2021

           In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13029 of 2020

                                 With
         CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2021
              In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 816 of 2021
==========================================================
                       EXECUITVE ENGINEER PANCHAYAT
                                   Versus
                        VALLABHBHAI MOTIBHAI TANDEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,4,5
MR MANAN MEHTA, AGP(99) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
       and
       HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER

                                 Date : 24/09/2021

                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)

Heard learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw for the appellants and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Manan Mehta for the respondent State and its authorities.

2. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against order dated 17.12.2020 of learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.13029 of 2020, whereby the petition came to be partly allowed and respondent was directed to calculate the amount towards the encashment of Unavailed Privilege Leave to the extent of 300 days. Learned Single Judge directed the authorities to undertake such exercise and make payment within stipulated time.

C/LPA/816/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2021

3. In Special Civil Application, the first prayer was to release the benefits towards encashment of 300 days unavailed leave whereas the other prayer was to direct the respondent to revise the pension as well as gratuity calculating it from the date of initial appointment. As regards the second prayer, learned Single Judge observed that the petitioners wanted to make representation and competent authority was directed to consider such representation as and when made by the petitioners.

3.1 The petitioners were daily wagers who worked under the respondent authorities for more than three decades. They reached the age of superannuation and retired from service. They claim the benefits flowing from the State Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 therefore aforesaid prayers were made by filing Special Civil Application.

4. While allowing the prayer for grant of leave encashment for 300 days, learned Single Judge relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Gujarat and Another Vs. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas and Another [2011 (2) GLR 1290]. By quoting the paragraphs therefrom and discussing the law laid down therein, learned Single Judge held that the petitioners are entitled to relief for leave encashment for Unavailed Privilege Leave. Not only that the learned Single Judge has based on the decision of the Division Bench of Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra), in more recent decision of another Division Bench in Arjanbhai Virabhai Bambhania Vs. State of Gujarat being Letters Patent Appeal No.35122 of 2019 and group of appeals, one of the question addressed was about the very benefits of leave encashment for 300 days flowing from Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The Division

C/LPA/816/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2021

Bench in Arjanbhai Virabhai Bambhania (supra) observed in paragraph No.37 as under.

"It would also be worthwhile to mention here that the judgment in the case of Mahendrakumar Bhagwandas (supra) having been upheld upto the Supreme Court and all the issues having been raised and having been discussed and dealt with, it would be unreasonable and unfair to the original petitioners from denying the nenefit extended to the other daily wagers covered by the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988."

5. In view of the above position of law emerging, no error could be said to have been committed by learned Single Judge. The challenged to the order is meritless. The Letters Patent Appeal is summarily dismissed.

ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION In view of disposal of the main appeal, the present Civil Application will not survive. Accordingly, it is disposed of.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J)

(DR. A. P. THAKER, J) Manshi