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

The petitioners in the connected writ petitions were retired employees of the Water Resources Department and related offices, holding posts including Electrician Grade-III, Chowkidar, Cook and Waterman. They sought consideration and grant of leave encashment under the Chhattisgarh Work-Charged/Contingency Paid Employees Leave Rules, 1977.

The petitioners asserted that they had already raised their respective claims relying upon the decision of the High Court in Faguvaram Patel & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, W.P.(S) No. 3870/2021, decided on 30 September 2022, in which a similar claim had been allowed. That decision was affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 119/2023 on 20 June 2023.

Since the writ petitions involved identical issues, they were heard and decided together by a common order.

Whether the petitioners’ claims for leave encashment were required to be considered under the Chhattisgarh Work-Charged/Contingency Paid Employees Leave Rules, 1977?

Whether the respondents should process the petitioners’ claims in light of the decision in Faguvaram Patel, as affirmed in appeal?

The Court applied the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Work-Charged/Contingency Paid Employees Leave Rules, 1977, under which eligible work-charged and contingency-paid employees may claim leave encashment.

It relied upon the High Court’s decision in Faguvaram Patel & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, W.P.(S) No. 3870/2021, decided on 30 September 2022, which had allowed a similar claim, and noted that the decision had been affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 119/2023, decided on 20 June 2023.

The Court found that the writ petitions raised issues identical to those already considered in Faguvaram Patel.

Rather than adjudicating the individual entitlement to leave encashment at the writ stage, the Court directed the competent respondent authorities to process and consider the petitioners’ claims in accordance with the applicable 1977 Rules and the binding precedent governing similar claims.

The prior affirmance of the precedent by the Division Bench supported directing administrative consideration on the same basis.

The writ petitions were accordingly disposed of, without any further relief or adjudication recorded.