Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Laxman Singh on 14 August, 2014
1
W.A. No.94/2014
14/8/2014.
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate
General for the State.
Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned
counsel for the respondents.
In this appeal filed by the State Government under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, tenability of an order dated 12.8.2013 passed in W.P. No.13786/2013 has been called in question.
Respondents Laxman Singh and Bhaskar Rao Narsade were working as Driver in Water Resources Department. On attaining the age of superannuation their pensionary claim was settled. It was found that while in service they were working in the Work Charged establishment. While settling their pensionary claim as leave encashment was not granted to them, they represented and when the representation was not considered, they filed the writ petition in question being W.P. No.13786/2013 contending that the petitioner is also entitled for leave encashment.
When the matter was taken up by the learned Writ Court, it was found that based on a Circular issued by the Finance Department on 14 th September 1992, a Division Bench of this 1 W.A. No.94/2014 Court in W.A. No.754/2010 - State of M.P. & Others Vs. Subhash Pandey has decided the question and by a detailed order passed the Division Bench had interfered into the matter. A perusal of the order passed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.754/2010 which is available on record goes to show that initially various Writ Courts had allowed Writ Petitions in the following cases : M.N. Vankhede & another Vs. State of M.P. & Others - W.P. No.18652/2003 and Sewakram Bhede & another Vs. State of M.P. Others - W.P. No.5688/2005. In all these cases, the learned Writ Court had held that an employee working in the Work Charged establishment is entitled for leave encashment to the extent of 120 days after his retirement. The said directions of the Writ Courts were challenged by the State Government in W.A. No.754/2010 - Subhash Pandey (supra) and the Writ Court after taking note of M.P. Work Charged Contingency Paid Employees Leave Rules, 1977 and the provisions contained in Rule 4 thereof, allowed the appeals of the State Government in part and issued the following directions :-
"We have considered the submission made by learned counsel for appellants. From perusal of the grounds mentioned in clause (b) of 1 W.A. No.94/2014 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. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of."
[Emphasis Supplied] The Division Bench in Writ Appeal having held that employees in the Work Charged Establishment are entitled to benefit of encashment of 120 days leave, respondents Laxman Singh and Bhaskar Rao Narsade also claimed the said benefit and vide order dated 1 W.A. No.94/2014 12.8.2013 the writ petition has been allowed and respondents Laxman Singh and Bhaskar Rao Narsade have been directed to be granted benefit of leave encashment for 120 days along with interest @ 6% per annum. Now it is the case of State Government in this Writ Appeal that under Rule 4 of the M.P. Work Charged Contingency Paid Employees Leave Rules, 1977, an employee is only entitled to 120 days Earned Leave but not encashment of earned leave after superannuation. It is seen from the records that pointing out an error that had occurred when Writ Appeal No.754/2010 - Subhash Pandey (supra) was decided by the Division Bench, a Review Petition was filed in the same case being R.P. No.506/2012 and in the Review Petition it was pointed out that in directing for encashment of 120 days Earned Leave, the Division Bench has committed a mistake, an error apparent on the face of the record and review was sought. Now this Review Petition has been allowed i.e. R.P. No.506/2012 and by an order passed on 21.7.2014 the contention of the State Government has been accepted. It has been found by the Division Bench in the order passed in the review proceeding that the facility of encashment of leave cannot be extended to Work Charged Employees and the operative portion of the order passed in W.A. No.754/2010 - Subhash 1 W.A. No.94/2014 Pandey (supra) has been modified to mean that the Work Charged Employee would only be entitled to 120 days' earned leave as referred to in Rule 4 of the Rules of 1977 and nothing more. The learned Division Bench in its order dated 21.7.2014 in R.P. No.506/2012 has dealt with the matter in the following manner :-
"The highlighted portion, therefore, will have to be understood to mean that the respondent(s) have succeeded to the extent of relief of benefit of 120 days of earned leave as per Rule 4 of Rules of 1977 and not encashment of leave as such.
Counsel for the respondent relies on Rule 7 of Rules 1977. That Rule enables the employee on earned leave and maternity leave to get benefit of leave salary equal to the rate of pay or salary which has been drawn for the month immediately prior to the month in which the leave is taken. That does not result in allowing encashment of leave of 120 days as such. Rule 4 is very specific to availing of earned leave by an employee having permanent status. The facility of encashment of leave in any case cannot be extended to 1 W.A. No.94/2014 work charged employee. Accordingly, this review petition succeeds.
Operative order passed in Writ Appeal No.753/2010 be understood to mean that the employees would be entitled to earned leave referred to in Rule 4 of the 1977 Rules and nothing more.
Accordingly, this review petition succeeds to the above extent. "
Now in the light of modification made to the original order passed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.754/2010, this appeal is also liable to be allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Bench is quashed and accordingly, it is held that the respondents employee will be entitled to 120 days Earned Leave in accordance to the Rule 4 of the Rules of 1977.
Accordingly, this appeal succeeds and is allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.
(Rajendra Menon) (Alok Verma)
Judge Judge
mrs.mishra