Chhotelal Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1078 MP

                            1




 IN    THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   AT JABALPUR
                          BEFORE
            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                ON THE 18 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                 WRIT PETITION No. 683 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
CHHOTELAL AHIRWAR S/O SHRI BRIJLAL AHIRWAR,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED HEAD
MASTER VILLAGE KANDWA POST KARMOURA TEHSIL
JATARA     DISTRICT   TIKAMGARH   ADHAR   NO.
491544400444 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                 .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ARVIND PATHAK - ADVOCATE )

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
      PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION
      DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT
      VALLABH     BHAWAN,    BHOPAL   (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

3.    COLLECTOR          TIKAMGARH, DISTRICT
      TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER TIKAMGARH
      DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.    BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, JATARA DISTRICT
      TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

6.    DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, TIKAMGARH,
      DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
                              2
7.    SANKUL PRINCIPAL, GOVT. HIGHER SECONDARY
      SCHOOL, BALDEVGARH DISTRICT TIKAMGARH
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AJIT RAWAT - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

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

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief :-

"(i) Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire record from the respondents pertaining to the present case for kind perusal.

(ii) Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents concerned to grant/ release Earned Leave Encashment amount of 300 days instead of 226 days along with interest @ 12% per annum forthwith in favour of the petitioner by strictly complying with circular of the respondent no.2 contained in Annexure P/5 in letter & spirit within a time bound frame, in the interest of justice.

(iii) Or in the alternative and without prejudice, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner contained in Annexure P/6 by a speaking order within a time bound frame.

(iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner along with cost of the petition."

I t is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that after completing twenty years of service, the petitioner has taken voluntary retirement

on 3.3.2022. Respondents have not given the benefit of 300 days of earned leave to the petitioner. He submitted a representation also in this regard, but to no avail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner referred order dated 13.10.2010 passed in W.P. No.2948/2008 (Virendra Kiledar Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) which is affirmed by Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior while passing order dated 27.04.2012 in W.A. No.484/2011. He also relied upon order dated 26.08.2022 passed in W.P. No.18772/2022 (Pradeep Kumar Malviya & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.). He seeks parity.

Learned counsel for the respondents/ State oppose the prayer but fairly submits that if any representation is preferred then same shall be taken care of in accordance with law/prevailing guidelines.

Considering the rival submissions, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation along with certified copy of this order to the respondents within three weeks' from today. If such representation is so preferred then respondents shall consider the same in accordance with relevant rules/guidelines and judgment passed by this Court from time to time in some similarly situated employees. Respondent shall pass a reasoned order under due intimation to the petitioner.

I t is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the

merits of the case and matter shall be heard and decided on its own merits.

Petition is disposed off accordingly.

(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE Vikram

VIKRAM SINGH 2023.01.19 12:57:01 +05'30'