Sukhlal Singh Sikarwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 17527 MP

                                                      1
                 IN         THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                           AT GWALIOR
                                              BEFORE
                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                                        ON THE 19 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                       WRIT PETITION No. 26525 of 2023

               BETWEEN:-
               SUKHLAL SINGH SIKARWAR S/O SHRI LT. SHRI KARAN
               SINGH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETD.
               DRIVER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DIVISION
               MORENA GOPALPURA MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                 .....PETITIONER
               (BY SHRI ALOK BANDHU SHRIVASTAVA- ADVOCATE)

               AND
               1.          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                           PRINCIPAL   SECRETARY  PUBLIC   WORKS
                           DEPARTMENT,     MANTRALAYA    VALLABH
                           BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

               2.          ENGINEER    IN   CHIEF, PUBLIC  WORKS
                           DEPARTMENT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

               3.          CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
                           GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

               4.          EXECUTIVE  ENGINEER   PUBLIC   WORKS
                           DEPARTMENT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

               5.          DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER, DISTRICT PENSION
                           OFFICE MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                               .....RESPONDENTS
               (BY SHRI S.S.KUSHWAH- GOVT. ADVOCATE )

                           This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
               following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
                                                       ORDER

SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 19-10-2023 06:26:54 PM

1.This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been

filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction/order of the respondents, whereby the claim of petitioner for encahsment of the earned leave has been rejected on the ground that he is a retired work charged employee and not entitled to leave encahsment.

2.Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision rendered in W.A. No.470/2012 (The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ram Khilawan Singh), preferred by the State of M.P. against the order dated 29.06.2011 passed in W.P. No.9930/2011.

3.Counsel for the petitioner while relying on Rule 4 of M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Leave Rules, 1977 (in short '1977

Rules'), submitted that the Division Bench in the case of Ram Khilawan Singh (supra) has considered the identical issue raised therein, wherein while allowing the petition preferred by a contingency paid employee, it was held by learned Singled Judge that he was entitled for leave encahsment of 240 days. This order was modified by the Division Bench in view of the admission of the State Government and Rule 4 of 1977 Rules which provided that an employee working under the work charged establishment is entitled for encahsment of 120 days earned leave. On the basis of the aforesaid, it was contended that the present petition be allowed and the benefit of encashment of earned leave for 120 days be extended to the petitioner.

4.Per contra, Shri Kushwah, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State, vehemently opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the judgment which has been cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in the matter of Ram Khilawan Singh (supra) was based upon the Signature Not Verified judgment passed in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Shyama Bai in Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 19-10-2023 06:26:54 PM W.A.No.753/2010 wherein such benefit of leave encashment was extended to

the contingency paid employees, but the said judgment in the case of Shyama Bai (supra) has been reviewed by the Division Bench in Review Petition No.506/2012 vide order dated 21.7.2014 and the judgment of Shyama Bai (supra) has been modified to the extent that the work charged employees would be entitled for earned leave of 120 days, but shall not be entitled for encashment of the same. Thus, it was submitted that since the judgment upon which the case of Ram Khilawan Singh (supra) was based is itself modified, the only relief which the petitioner could get is of his entitlement for earned leave of 120 days during his service tenure, but he could not be entitled for encashment of the said earned leave.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.In view of the fact that the judgment of Shyama Bai (supra) upon which the case of Ram Khilawan Singh (supra) was based since has been modified to the extent that the work charged employees would only be entitled for earned leave as referred to in Rule 4 of 1977 Rules, but would not be entitled for encashment of said earned leave which according to this Court would squarely be applicable in the present case, therefore, now in the light of judgment in the case of Ram Khilawan Singh (supra) no order can be passed for encashment of earned leave. The only direction, which could be given to the respondents, now is to extend benefit of earned leave of 120 days to the work

charged employees, but since the petitioner has already retired, the relief of encashment of earned leave cannot be granted.

7.Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed.

Signature Not Verified

8.Before parting, it is required to be observed that since on earlier Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD occasions, the fact of modification of order passed in W.A.No.753/2010 (State Signing time: 19-10-2023 06:26:54 PM

of M.P. Vs. Shyama Bai) in R.P.No.506/2012, whereby the earlier order of entitlement of leave encashment to the work charged employees, was modified to the extent of their entitlement of earned leave and not for its encashment upon which the judgment of Ram Khilawan Singh's case was based, was not brought before this Court, this Court directs the State to get all the orders reviewed, where directions for grant of leave encashment has been issued by the Court based upon Ram Khilawan Singh's case (supra).

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE ms/-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 19-10-2023 06:26:54 PM