Shiv Prasad Choudhari vs The General Manager
2022 Latest Caselaw 5560 MP

                                                   W.P. No. 8597/2022
                              1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

                         AT JABALPUR
                            BEFORE

     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI

                    ON THE 18th OF APRIL, 2022

                WRIT PETITION No. 8597 of 2022

 Between:-
 SHIV PRASAD CHOUDHARI, S/O SHRI
 CHANULAL CHOUDHARI, AGED ABOUT
 56  YEARS,  OCCUPATION:    RETD.
 EMPLOYEE R/O GRAM MURTI POUDI
 POST    DAGIDDHANA,    DISTRICT-
 NARSINGHPUR, (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                  .....PETITIONER
 (BY SHRI ALOK TIWARI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)

 AND

   THE GENERAL MANAGER, MADHYA
   PRADESH GRAMIN BANK, HEAD
   OFFICE:- 204, BUSINESS PARK, IN
1. FRONT OF RADISSION BLU HOTEL, MR-
   10, DISTRICT- INDORE     (MADHYA
   PRADESH)

   THE REGIONAL MANAGER, MADHYA
   PRADESH GRAMIN BANK, REGIONAL
   OFFICE, 600 BADERIYA COMPLEX
2.
   KAMLA NEHRU NAGAR, DISTRICT
   JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

   CHIEF MANAGER, MADHYA PRADESH
   GRAMIN BANK, HEAD OFFICE:- 204,
   BUSINESS PARK, IN FRONT OF
3.
   RADISSION  BLU  HOTEL,   MR-10,
   DISTRICT- INDORE       (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
                                                 .....RESPONDENTS

 (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS)
                                                               W.P. No. 8597/2022
                                     2

      This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
                                    ORDER

Heard.

The petitioner is being seeking following reliefs:-

(i) To quash the impugned order dated 15/11/2021 (Annex.P-7).

(ii) To, direct the respondent to make payment of leave encashment.

(iii) To, direct the respondent to pay interest @ 18% on delayed payment of leave encashment to the petitioner.

(iv) To grant any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the litigation in favour of the petitioner.

It is argued that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1985 as Cashier

in the respondent Bank. He was compulsory retired under Section 39(1)(b)(iii)

of Central Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank (officer and employees) Service

Regulation, 2010 vide order dated 14.03.2019 passed by respondent No.2.

After compulsory retirement, respondents was paid all retiral benefits but did

not pay any amount of leave encashment to the petitioner; therefore, the

petitioner approached the respondent bank by way of filing certain W.P. No. 8597/2022

representations, but of no consequence; therefore, the present petition is being

filed.

Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that this Court has considered

the similar aspect in Writ Petition No.15834/2021 (Rajneesh Sonkar Vs.

Bank of India and others), order dated 06.09.2021. In such circumstances, the

petitioner prays for similar relief that has been granted in the case of Rajneesh

Sonkar (supra). The petitioner has already preferred a detailed representation

contained in Annexure P-5 to the respondents authority; however, his

representation has not been considered and decided. An innocuous prayer is

made against the respondents authorities to consider and decide the

representation submitted by the petitioner within a stipulated time frame.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is

directed to submit a fresh representation to the respondents within a period of

10 days along with copy of this order and along with the copy of the orders

passed in Writ Appeal No.240/2019, dated 08.11.2019 (Narmada Jhabua

Gramin Bank Through Chairman Vs. Mukund) as well as the order passed

in Writ Petition No.1347/2016 by the Bombay High Court in the case of Ashok

and ors. Vs. Chief Secretary and Others, dated 17.02.2017 and order dated

06.09.2021, passed in Writ Petition No.15834/2021 (Rajneesh Sonkar Vs.

Bank of India and others) and in case such a representation is filed, the W.P. No. 8597/2022

respondents authorities are directed to consider and decide the same within a

period of 60 days.

Considering the judgments passed in the aforesaid case and the outcome

be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period.

Needless to mention here that this Court has not expressed any opinion

on the merits of the case.

Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of.

(S.A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE ashish Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Date: 2022.04.18 17:44:44 +05'30'