Deepchand Soni vs Inspector General Registrar Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7729 MP

                                          1
                                                                 WP No.25155/2021

           High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur
                       Bench at Indore
                  Writ Petition No.25155/2021
                         (Deepchand Soni s/o Mulchand Soni
                                       Versus
                        The State of Madhya Pradesh & others)
Indore, Dated 23.11.2021
      Shri Subhash Upadhyaya, learned counsel along with Smt.

Archana Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Kushagra Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent /

State of Madhya Pradesh, on advance notice.

      Heard finally with the content of the learned counsel for the

parties.

                                  ORDER

By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, the petitioner is seeking the following relief (s): -

"[7] Relief prayed for: -

That, in the aforesaid premises, the Petitioner crave indulgence of this Hon'ble Court for grant of following re- liefs to the Petitioner.

(a) To call for the relevant records of the case from the re- spondents.

(b) The respondent by kindly directed to be given amount of leave encashment of 300 days alongwith salary of remain- ing period and also consequential benefits w.e.f. petitioner has completed at the age of 62 years in the Respondents De- partment, in the light of order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Hon'ble High Court and Circular issued by the Re- spondents with all consequential benefits and grant interest @ 12% per annum.

(c) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to refix the pay and pension with effect from 30.09.2019.

(d) To any order, other relief which this Hon'ble High Court may deems fit in the circumstances of this case.

(e) That, the cost of the Petitioner may be awarded."

WP No.25155/2021

2. The short controversy involved in the writ petition is

confined to inaction on the part of respondents in the matter of

consideration of representation filed against denial of benefit of

leave encashment after retirement of the petitioner, though entitled

under circular dated 08.03.2019 and the orders passed by this

Court in similar cases.

3. Without commenting upon the contentions so advanced, if

what petitioner's say is correct, the respondents shall be well

advised to decide the representation within 8 (eight) weeks

from the date of submission of certified copy of the order passed

today, in accordance with law bearing in mind the judgment of this

Court in the matter of Chaganlal Kankrecha v. State of M.P.

(Writ Petition No. 4787/2005) decided on 22.01.2007.

4. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any

opinion on merits of the case.

5. With the aforesaid observation and directions, Writ Petition

No.25155/2021 stands disposed of.

(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge Pithawe RC

RAMESH CHANDRA PITHWE 2021.11.23 17:46:46 +05'30'