Madhya Pradesh High Court
Data Ram Rishishwar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 October, 2017
1
WP No.772/2007(S)
(Dataram Rishishwar v. State of MP & Others)
26.10.2017
Shri Rajmani Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vivek Jain, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents-State.
Heard.
With consent of the parties, the controversy has been restricted to only encashment of leave.
2. As per the respondents, petitioner was entitled to 105 days leave encashment from 04.06.1973 to 02.07.1990. Thereafter he never worked during vacation. Subsequently, he was granted 80 days leave in terms of the provisions contained in Circular dated 27.02.1998 Annexure P/3, but said leave, though could have been enjoyed by the petitioner, was not encashable. Learned Government Advocate submits that Annexure P/3 has been rescinded vide order dated 16.04.2008 issued by the Finance Department, which has been enclosed by him alongwith his additional return.
3. In view of such submissions, the controversy in the present petition is two-fold. Firstly, whether leave encashment for a period of 104 days has been actually paid to the petitioner or not. Petitioner disputes this aspect and submits that he has not received leave encashment for 104 days as has been mentioned by the respondents in their return vide Annexure R/2. In this regard, this controversy can be sorted out by directing the District Education Officer, Gwalior, to supply copies of the payment vouchers of leave encashment for 104 days to the petitioner and if such encashment vouchers are not produced, then it will be 2 WP No.772/2007(S) (Dataram Rishishwar v. State of MP & Others) deemed that this leave was not encashed and the petitioner will be paid encashment for those 104 days besides one day, i.e., 105 days which is his total entitlement till 1990.
4. As far as leave, which has been credited in the account of the petitioner by virtue of Circular dated 27.02.1998 Annexure P/3 is concerned, though the said Circular has been withdrawn vide order dated 16.06.2008, but in para 4 of the said order dated 16.06.2008 itself, it is mentioned that the persons, who have superannuated prior to 01.01.2008, their leave accounts are not to be opened. In view of such provisions in the order dt. 16.06.2008 itself and admittedly since the petitioner had superannuated in the year 2005, he cannot be made to suffer on account of subsequent development by saying that he cannot get encashment of 80 days of leave, which he had accumulated in his Earned Leave Account upto the date of his superannuation as there was no such stipulation putting an embargo on leave encashment for additional earned leave permitted on account of reduction of Holidays and increase in number of working days. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court and also in the light of the provisions contained in Clause 4 of the order dated 16.06.2008, the petitioner is entitled to leave encashment of 80 days, which had accumulated in his account between 1998 and 2005. In view of such discussions, it is directed as under :-
(1)Petitioner will be paid leave encashment of 80 days in terms of Para 4 of order dated 16.06.2008 for the earned leave which had accumulated in his Leave 3 WP No.772/2007(S) (Dataram Rishishwar v. State of MP & Others) Account between 1998 and 2005 in terms of order dated 27.02.1998 alongwith 8% interest from the date of superannuation till the actual date of payment.
Besides this, he will be also entitled to one day's leave encashment on the abovesaid terms, which is admittedly not disputed.
(2)As far as 104 days' leave encashment is concerned, as has been discussed above, as per the respondents, the petitioner has already taken leave encashment of 104 days accumulated leave. If vouchers are produced to the petitioner showing that he has already taken encashment of such 104 days of leave, then the petitioner will not be entitled to claim reimbursement of the claim which has already been reimbursed to him. But in case respondent-District Education Officer fails to supply documentary evidence/vouchers in regard to payment of 104 days of leave, as has been mentioned in their return, then that too will be payable alongwith 8% interest from the date of retirement till the actual date of payment. Let this exercise be carried out within a period of 03 months from the date of communication of this order.
In view of the above terms, the petition is disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Vivek Agarwal) Judge Mehfooz/-