01Facts
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.
¶ 2The 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.
¶ 3Since the writ petitions involved identical issues, they were heard and decided together by a common order.
¶ 102Issues
i.Whether the petitioners’ claims for leave encashment were required to be considered under the Chhattisgarh Work-Charged/Contingency Paid Employees Leave Rules, 1977?
¶ 2ii.Whether the respondents should process the petitioners’ claims in light of the decision in Faguvaram Patel, as affirmed in appeal?
¶ 303Law Applied
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.
¶ 304Reasoning
The Court found that the writ petitions raised issues identical to those already considered in Faguvaram Patel.
¶ 1Rather 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.
¶ 2–4The prior affirmance of the precedent by the Division Bench supported directing administrative consideration on the same basis.
¶ 305Holding
The Court disposed of all three writ petitions with a direction to the respondent authorities to immediately process the claims of the petitioners and other similarly placed persons in light of the decision in Faguvaram Patel, within an outer limit of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
¶ 4The writ petitions were accordingly disposed of, without any further relief or adjudication recorded.
¶ 5Original Court PDF
AARENDRA KUMAR KESHRIvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
