Chandrabhan Sharma (C B Sharma) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 2606 MP

                                1
 IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT GWALIOR
                         BEFORE
       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                  ON THE 13 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                  WRIT PETITION No. 2774 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
CHANDRABHAN SHARMA (C B SHARMA) S/O LATE
SHRI BADRI PRASAD SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PENSIONER (RETIRED STHAL SAHAYAK
OFFICE KARYAPLAN YANTRI JAL SANSADHAN
SAMBHAG, SABALGARH DISTT. MORENA) R/O A-10, A
BLOCK THATIPUR, GOVT. AWAS MURAR DISTRICT
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                           .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NEERAJ SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCAE)

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
      PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,   JAL SANSADHAN
      VIBHAG, VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

2.    PRAMUKH    ABHIYANTA,   JAL  SANSADHAN
      VIBHAG, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    MUKHYA ABHIYANTA, JAL SANSADHAN VIBHAG,
      DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    KARYAPALAN   YANTRI,  JAL   SANSADHAN
      SAMBHAG,   SABALGARH, DISTRICT MORENA
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.    JILA KOSHALAY ADHIKARI, DISTRICT MORENA
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI JITESH SHARMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

      This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                    2
                                    ORDER

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred challenging the order dated 06.06.2022 passed by respondent No.4, whereby the representation/legal notice filed by the petitioner for grant of leave encashment of 120 days has been rejected.

It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 06.06.2022 is a non speaking order, no consideration has been mentioned in the aforesaid order and no reasons have been assigned therein why the petitioner is not entitled for grant of leave encashment. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s

Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, reported in 2010(9) SCC 496(para 51). It is submitted that even Quasi Judicial authorities are required to pass reasoned and speaking order and in absence thereof it could be said that principles of natural justice has not been followed and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and the matter is required to be remitted back to the competent authority for taking decision afresh. He further submits that in one of similar matters one of the employees of the department, to which the petitioner belongs, has been accorded the benefit of leave encashment. The said order dated 28.05.2014 is appended to the petition as Annexure P/3. It is also submitted that the case of the petitioner is also covered by the orders passed in the matter of M.M.Vankhede and Ors. Vs. State of M.P. and Ors., passed in Writ Petition No.18652/2003 and in the matter of State of M.P. and Ors. Vs. Smt. Shyama Bai passed in Writ Appeal No.753/2010 by the Division Bench of this Court. On the strength of aforesaid arguments, learned counsel submits that the matter may be decided afresh.

Per contra, learned Govt. Advocate for the State, on advance notice,

submits that since the petitioner belongs to contingency work charge employment, he is not entitled for grant of leave encashment and thus prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is evident that the impugned order dated 06.06.2022 passed by the authority is non speaking order and no reasons have been assigned as to why petitioner is not entitled for leave encashment even after consideration of the judgment quoted above, which were even directed to be considered while relegating the petitioner to the authorities in W.P. No.6555/2015 vide order dated 01.10.2015, which were not taken note of and also judgements, which have been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

In the light of aforesaid anomaly the present petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 06.06.2022 is hereby quashed. The matter is relegated back to the competent authority to decide the representation/legal notice of the petitioner afresh in the light of the orders passed in the cases as mentioned above.

With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE neetu NEETU SHASHANK 2023.02.14 11:30:35 +05'30'