Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ram Khailawan Singh Judgement Given By: ... on 10 October, 2013
Writ Appeal No.470/2012
10.10.2013
Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, GA, for the appellants.
Shri D.Gupta for respondents No.1 to 5.
This appeal is directed against an order dt.29.6.2011 in W.P. No.9930/2011 by which a writ petition preferred by the respondents was finally disposed of in the light of an order passed in W.P. No.18652/2003 (M.N.Wankhede and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors) by which it was decided that the respondents were entitled for leave incashment for a period of 240 days. This order has been assailed by the appellants on the ground that the respondents who are retired Work Charge employees are entitled for earned leave encashment and there is no provision in the rule for grant of leave encashment. It is submitted that as per the rule 4 of the M.P. Work Charge Contingency Paid Employees Leave Rules 1977, the respondents were entitled for 120 days maximum earned leave encashment and not beyond it.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents on being specifically asked under what provision retired Workcharge employees are entitled for 240 days' leave encashment, he was unable to show any provision in this regard.
Rule 4 of the aforesaid rules reads as under :
"4. Earned leave-
Earned leave shall be admissible to an employee having permanent status at the rate of (20 days) and to an employee not having such status at the rate of 10 days in a year on the continuous service rendered by him immediately to the commencement of the leave subject to a maximum accumulation at a time [120 days] leave in the case of employees having permanent status and 30 days leave in the case of temporary employees."
The aforesaid provision specifically provides maximum 120 days earned leave encashment. This question has already been examined by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.753/2010 (State of M.P. vs. Smt.Shyama Bai). By an order dt.15.12.2010, the Division Bench considered the case of M.N.Wankhede and held thus:
"The singular issue which arises for consideration in this writ appeal is whether the respondent who was employed in work charge establishment is entitled of 240 days leave encashment after his superannuation. Learned single Judge vide order dated while placing reliance on the case of M.N. Vankhede and Another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & others, W.P. No.18652/2003 as well as another order dated 30.7.2007 passed in Sewakram Bhede & another v. State of M.P. and Others, W.P. No.5688/2005 directed the State Government to settle the claim of the respondent with regard to grant of leave encashment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order in accordance with the directives issued in the case of Sewakram Bhede (supra). However, learned single Judge has also observed that the appellants, herein, while deciding the claim of the respondent shall be at liberty to take into account the fact whether any statutory rule applies to the case of the respondent or not. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the State has preferred this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in view of the circular dated 14.9.1992 issued by the Finance Department, respondent who was employed in work charge establishment are not entitled to encashment of earned leave. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that rule 4 of the M.P.Work Charge Contingency Paid Employees Leave Rules, 1977 only provides for encashment of 120 days of earned leave to the employees of the work charge establishment.
However, in view of the order passed in Sewakram Bhede (supra) learned single Judge has rightly directed the appellants to grant the benefits leave encashment of 240 days earned leaves.
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."
In view of the settled position of law in Shyama Bai (supra) the order passed by the Single Bench deserves to be modified. Accordingly, the order is modified to the extent as indicated in Shyama Bai (supra). With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is finally disposed of with no order as to costs.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Subhash Kakade)
Acting Chief Justice Judge
Khan*