Chattisgarh High Court
Ishwar Prasad Dewangan vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. 40 ... on 19 July, 2018
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 2610 OF 2013
Ishwar Prasad Dewangan S/o Lt Shri Tarachand Dewangan, Aged
About 62 Years Retired Principal At Govt. High School Laripani, PS
And Block Lailunga, Civil And Revenue Distt Raigarh, At Presently
Residint at Village And Post Sargaon, Block Bamhinidhih, Civil And
Revenue Distt Janjgir Champa.
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh through Secretary Tribal Development
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Dist Raipur (CG).
2. Commissioner Tribal Development Department, C.G. Govt, Raipur,
Dist Raipur (CG).
3. Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Department, Distt
Raigarh (CG).
4. District Treasury Officer Distt Raigarh (CG).
5. Pension Nirakaran Samiti Thrdouth Its Secretary (General
Administration Department) Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Dist
Raipur (CG).
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Shri Anil Singh Rajput, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Shri Ashutosh Pandey, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 19.07.2018
1. The present is a second round of litigation by a retired Principal of Government School. The action of the respondent shows the pathetic condition of the affairs of the State Govt. wherein the retired Principal of a High School is being denied his rightful claim of leave encashment.
2. Facts of the case is that, the petitioner was retired from service as Principal from Govt. High School Laripani, District Raigarh w.e.f. 31.01.2013. Subsequent to his retirement, while granting the retiral dues to the petitioner, the respondents paid leave encashment of the 2 petitioner for only 150 days. According to the petitioner, he had sufficient leave in his credit and was entitled for maximum leave encashment permissible i.e. of 240 days. In this regard, the petitioner had on an earlier occasion filed a writ petition WPS No.1014 of 2013 which stood disposed of on 12.04.2013 whereby this court had directed the matter of the petitioner to be placed before the High Powered Committee constituted by the State Govt. dealing with retiral dues of retired employees.
3. Pursuant to disposal of the writ petition, the matter was placed before the Committee consisting of five senior level officers of the State Govt. The said committee while disposing of the claim of the petitioner held as under :
^^4] lfefr us foHkkxh; vf/kdkfj;kas ls ;kfpdkdrkZ ds ekax ds laca/k es oLrqfLFkfr Li"V djus ds fy, dgk x;kA foHkkxh; vf/kdkjh us lfefr dks voxr djk;k fd ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk foRr foHkkx ds Kki dzekad 445@338@fUk&2@pkj fnukad 28-04-1992 ds vk/kkj ij vuqlwfpr {ks=ksa esa inLFk deZpkfj;ksa dks o"kZ esa 10 fnu dk vfrfjDr vftZr vodk'k tkrk gS ftlds lap; dh vf/kdre lhek 240 fnol gS blesa mDr vodk'k dks lfEEkfyr dj uxnhdj.k ds vkns'k gSA foRr foHkkx }kjk mDr ifji= iqujhf{kr djrs gq, vuqlwfpr {ks=ksa es inLFk deZpkfj;ksa dks ;g lqfo/kk lekIr dj nh xbZ gSA 5- lfefr us ;kfpdk dk voyksdu fd;k o foHkkx }kjk izLrqr vfHkys[kksa dk voykssdu fd;k x;k o ik;k fd ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk foRr foHkkx }kjk tkjh o"kZ 1992 dk Kki lanHkZ ds :i es fy;k x;k tcfd foRr foHkkx }kjk bl Kki esa lalks/ku dj fn;k x;k gS ftlds vuqlkj vuqlwfpr 3 {ks=ksa esa inLFk deZpkfj;kssa ds fy, ;g lqfo/kk 'kwU; ?kksf"kr dj nh xbZ gSA bl Kki ds vuqlkj ;kfpdkdrkZ dks ekax dh xbZ uxnhdj.k dh ik=rk ugh curh gSA vr% ;kfpdkdrkZ dh 82 fnuksa dh uxnhdj.k dh ekax [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA**
4. It is relevant at this juncture to refer to a document which has been provided to the petitioner by the respondents-State themselves while granting him the leave encashment of 158 days. The operative portion of which is again reproduced herein which would be relevant for the adjudication of the present writ petition more effectively :
3 fnukad 31-07-78 ls 09-03-1987 rd & 8 Ok"kZ 7 ekg 9 fnu fnol dqy lsok vof/k 4 fnukad 10-03-87 ls 31-01-13 rd & 25 o"kZ 10 ekg 21 fnol dqy lsok vof/k 5 dkye 3 esa vafdr vof/k gsrq leiZ.k & 38 fnu vodk'k dh ik=rk (,d o"kZ esa 15 fnu dh nj ls) vtZu vuqlkj okLrfod ik=rk 6 dkye 4 esa vafdr vof/k gsrq leiZ.k & 157 fnu vodk'k dh ik=rk (,d o"kZ esa 7 fnu dh nj ls) vtZu vuqlkj okLrfod ik=rk 7 dqy vftZr vodk'k leiZ.k dh & 195 fnu ik=rk 8 ?kVkbZ;s%&lsok ds nkSjku fy;k x;k & 37 fnu vodk'k 9 lsokfuo~fRr ij leiZ.k dh ik=rk & 158 fnu
5. The contention of the petitioner is that he had filed first petition on the ground that the respondent authorities have not properly calculated the leave which the petitioner would be entitled for on the basis of information which they have furnished as per calculation sheet provided by the Assistant Commissioner along with order dated 21.02.2013. According to the petitioner, if as per the details as provided by the respondents are taken note of, he would be entitled 4 for leave of 120 days as far as serial No.5 is concerned whereas according to the respondents he is entitled for 38 days. Likewise, so far as the serial No.6 is concerned, again the contention of the petitioner is that as per calculation to be made according to State Govt. rules itself, the petitioner would have got 175 days in his credit, however the said document shows that there were only 157 days. Thus, adding 120 with 175, the total days in his credit would had been 295 days instead of 195 days as has been recorded by the State Govt.. According to petitioner, this was his only grievance and for which it was referred to the Committee and the Committee has not considered any of these aspects and have straightway went and decided the matter on entirely different and extraneous consideration and reasons.
6. The State counsel today is not in a position to justify the action of the Committee except for the fact that the findings does not seem to be erroneous based on the reasons assigned therein.
7. This court is surprised with the decision and the manner in which the Committee consisting of five senior level officers of the State has decided the claim of the petitioner. The minimum that was required from these higher level officials was to first understand the actual grievance of the petitioner and then try to find out the reasons as to why the petitioner has not been paid leave encashment as prayed for and should have tried to redress the grievance, rather than finding out ways and means to reject the claim application.
8. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this court does not intend to keep this petition pending any further. Rather, ends of 5 justice would meet if this petition is disposed of with a direction that it shall be the duty of the respondent No.1 herein to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the letter issued by the Assistant Commissioner on 21.02.2013 so far as calculation of leave in the credit of petitioner is concerned and thereafter pass a speaking order and in case if the authorities find that the petitioner is entitled for leave encashment of more days than what has been provided to him, the same shall be released to him forthwith along with interest @ 10 percent per annum from the date of retirement till the actual payment is made.
9. It is ordered accordingly.
10. It is directed that the respondent No.1 shall scrutinize the claim of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible within outer limit of 45 days from the date of presentation of copy of this order before the respondent No.1.
11. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to bring the order of this court to the notice of respondent No.1.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder