Madhya Pradesh High Court
Munnalal Dahayat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 February, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 21 st OF FEBRUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 3952 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. MUNNALAL DAHAYAT S/O SHRI PHOOL CHAND
DAHAYAT, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED EMPLOYEE H.NO. 100 VIVEKANAND
WARD DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. GULABRAM CHANDANI S/O SHRI GURMUKHDAS
CHANDANI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRED EMPLOYEE R/O TOWER
NO. 06, H.NO. 609, SAMDARIYA GREEN CITY,
MADHOTAL, DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. KARAN SINGH THAKUR S/O SHRI SHANKAR
SINGH THAKUR, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRED EMPLOYEE R/O H.NO.
308, ASRA APARTMENT , IN FRONT OF GULATI
PETROL PUMP, MADAN MAHAL, PREMNAGAR,
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. VIJAY KUMAR JAIN S/O SHRI PHOOL CHAND
JAIN, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED EMPLOYEE R/O H.NO.720, SHIV NAGAR,
DAMOHNAKA, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. JAWAHAR LAL PATEL S/O SHRI SUKHLAL PATEL,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED
EMPLOYEE R/O H.NO. 818, JHANDA CHOWK,
PURWA, GARHA, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. RAJU SONDHIYA S/O LATE SHRI RAMSEVAK,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED
EMPLOYEE R/O 1606, NEAR GANDA KUNWA,
MEDICAL COLLEGE PREMISES, JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. MAHESH PRASAD BURMAN S/O LATE SHRI
PREMLAL BURMAN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRED EMPLOYEE R/O H.NO
2272, WIGHT TOWN, NEAR ARUN DAIRY,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
2/24/2023 2:54:16 PM
2
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ADITYA AHIWASI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
SECRETARY MINISTRY OF PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT( E AND M) JABALPUR DIVISION
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PUBLIC WORKS
D E PA R T M E N T SUB DIVISION JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioners' contention is that they are retired employees from the Office
of respondent Nos.2&3. They are regular employees of the Work Charged
Establishment. They have been given pension as admissible to the Members of
the Work Charged Establishment under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh
Work Charged & Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979 but have
been denied the benefit of leave encashment. A Division Bench of this Hon'ble
High Court in Writ Appeal No.470/2012 [State of Madhya Pradesh &
Others versus Ramkhilawan Singh & Others] dealing with the same issue
has passed an order on 10.10.2013, which reads as under:-
''We have considered the submissions made by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
2/24/2023 2:54:16 PM
learned counsel for the appellants. From perusal of the
grounds mentioned in Clause (b) of Memorandum of
Appeal filed by the appellants, it is apparent that the
appellants have admitted that under Rule 4 of the Rules of
1977, the employees are entitled to 120 days' leave
encashment. Thus, in view of the stand taken by the
appellants themselves, the respondent is entitled to the
benefit of encashment of 120 days' earned leave.
Accordingly, the appellants are directed to extend the
benefit of encashment of 120 days' leave to the
respondent which is admissible under the Rules within a
period of three months from the date of production of
certified copy of the order, if not already paid.
Accordingly, the order passed by learned Single Judge is
modified to the extent indicated above.
In view of the settled position of law laid down by
Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court in Writ
Appeal No.753/2010 [State of Madhya Pradesh
versus Shyama Bai] decided on 15.12.2010, the order
passed by the Single Bench deserves to be modified.
Accordingly, the order is modified to the extent as
indicated in Writ Appeal No.753/2010 [State of
Madhya Pradesh versus Shyama Bai] decided on
15.12.2010. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal
is finally disposed of with no order as to costs.''
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
2/24/2023 2:54:16 PM
Learned Government Advocate for the State in his turn submits that the
judgment delivered in Writ Appeal No.753/2010 [State of Madhya Pradesh
versus Shyama Bai] on 15.12.2010 was reviewed by a Division Bench of this
Court in Review Petition No.506/2012 and vide order dated 21.7.2014, it was
observed thus:-
''We have considered the submission made by
learned counsel for appellants. From perusal of the
grounds mentioned in clause (b) of memorandum of
the appeal filed by the appellants, it is apparent that
the appellants have admitted that under Rule 4 of the
1977 Rules, the employees are entitled to 120 days'
leave encashment. Thus, in view of the stand taken
by the appellants themselves, the respondent is
entitled to the benefit of encashment of 120 days'
earned leave. Accordingly, the appellants are directed to
extend the benefit of encashment of 120 days leave to the
respondent which is admissible under the Rules within a
period of three months from the date of production of
certified copy of the order, if not already paid.
Accordingly, the order passed by learned Single Judge is
modified to the extent indicated above.
Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of.
[Emphasis supplied]
The highlighted portion, therefore, will have to be
understood to mean that the respondent(s) have
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
2/24/2023 2:54:16 PM
succeeded to the extent of relief of benefit of 120 days of
earned leave as per Rule 4 of Rules of 1977 and not
encashment of leave as such.
Counsel for the respondent relies on Rule 7 of
Rules 1977. That Rule enables the employee on earned
leave and maternity leave to get benefit of leave salary
equal to the rate of pay or salary which has been drawn
for the month immediately prior to the month in which the
leave is taken. That does not result in allowing encashment
of leave of 120 days as such. Rule 4 is very specific to
availing of earned leave by an employee having permanent
status. The facility of encashment of leave in any case
cannot be extended to work charged employee.
Accordingly, this review petition succeeds.
Operative order passed in Writ Appeal
No.753/2010 be understood to mean that the employees
would be entitled to earned leave referred to in Rule 4 of
the 1977 Rules and nothing more.''
Hence, in the light of the order dated 21.7.2014 passed in Review
Petition No.506/2012, the petitioners, being members of the Work Charged
Establishment, are not entitled to leave encashment.
Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
amit
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
2/24/2023 2:54:16 PM
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
2/24/2023 2:54:16 PM
