Unchallenged committee findings limiting leave encashment to 69 days cannot be displaced by photocopied records.

The petitioner, a government school employee, claimed entitlement to encashment of 240 days of earned leave under Rule 27 of the M.P. Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977.

He alleged that the Principal, owing to an inimical relationship with him, had manipulated or destroyed relevant leave-account records.

Relying on a photocopy of the service record, the petitioner sought payment for 240 days of leave, with interest and costs.

On the petitioner’s complaint, a three-member committee examined the available records and concluded that he was entitled to leave encashment for only 69 days.

The respondents stated that the corresponding amount had already been paid to him.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to leave encashment for 240 days under Rule 27 of the M.P. Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977.

2. Whether the Court could grant relief on the basis of the petitioner’s photocopy of the service record when the committee had determined his entitlement at 69 days and that finding had not been challenged.

3. Whether any further relief, including interest or costs, was warranted after payment of the amount corresponding to 69 days of leave.

The Court applied Rule 27 of the M.P. Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977, governing leave encashment for eligible accumulated leave.

The Court also applied the principle that a claim for writ relief must be established by cogent and reliable material, and that an unchallenged administrative or fact-finding report may be relied upon where the petitioner does not specifically impeach its findings.

The burden remained on the petitioner to demonstrate that the committee’s determination was contrary to the available record.

The Court noted that although the petitioner claimed entitlement to 240 days and alleged destruction of the original records, a committee had examined the available material and determined that only 69 days were admissible.

The petitioner relied selectively on an observation in the committee’s report concerning the absence of the Principal’s signature, but failed to challenge the report’s final conclusion or establish through cogent evidence that the committee had incorrectly assessed his leave account.

In the absence of a specific challenge to the committee’s findings, the Court treated that report as the relevant available record and declined to substitute the petitioner’s photocopy-based claim for the committee’s determination.

Since payment for 69 days had already been made, no further enforceable entitlement was established.

As the petitioner had already received the amount payable for 69 days and had not demonstrated any legal or factual error in the committee’s report, the writ petition was dismissed as meritless.

No additional amount, interest, costs, or other relief was granted.