Authorities must process similarly placed employees’ leave-encashment claims under the 1977 Rules within 120 days.

The petitioners in four connected writ petitions claimed leave encashment under the Chhattisgarh Work-Charged/Contingency Paid Employees Leave Rules, 1977.

They approached the High Court seeking directions to the Public Works Department authorities to consider and process their claims.

The petitioners relied upon the High Court’s decision in W.P.(S) No. 3870/2021, Faguvaram Patel & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, decided on 30 September 2022, where a similar claim was allowed.

That decision was affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 119/2023, decided on 20 June 2023.

Since the petitions involved identical issues, they were heard and disposed of by a common order.

Whether the petitioners’ claims for leave encashment under the Chhattisgarh Work-Charged/Contingency Paid Employees Leave Rules, 1977 should be considered by the respondent authorities in light of the decision in Faguvaram Patel?

Whether the High Court should direct the respondent authorities to process the claims of the petitioners and similarly placed persons within a prescribed time?

The Court applied the Chhattisgarh Work-Charged/Contingency Paid Employees Leave Rules, 1977, which govern leave-related benefits, including leave encashment, for covered work-charged and contingency-paid employees.

It relied upon the precedent in Faguvaram Patel & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, W.P.(S) No. 3870/2021, decided on 30 September 2022, concerning a similar claim for leave encashment; that decision had been affirmed in W.A. No. 119/2023 on 20 June 2023.

The governing principle was that claims of similarly situated employees should be considered consistently in accordance with the applicable Rules and the binding precedent.

The Court noted that the petitioners had raised claims identical to those considered in Faguvaram Patel, and that the earlier decision had attained greater precedential force after being affirmed by the Division Bench.

Rather than adjudicating the individual entitlement to leave encashment at the writ stage, the Court directed the competent authorities to examine and process the claims of the petitioners and similarly placed persons in accordance with the applicable Rules and the earlier decisions.

The Court accordingly considered a time-bound administrative determination appropriate.

The authorities were required to complete the process within an outer limit of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

The Court did not itself grant or quantify leave encashment, but directed consideration and processing of the claims in accordance with law.