Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2204 (RAJ)

Sachin Kumar v. State of Others

2006-07-13

R.C.GANDHI

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioners, by means this petition, seek direction to the respondents to sanction and release the Earned Leave and leave encashment benefit in favour of the petitioners on their superannuation. 2. The petitioners have averred in the petition that the petitioners were initially appointed on Work-Charge Establishment and subsequently their services were regularised and brought on regular establishment. They retired on attaining the age of superannuation. They are entitled to service benefit, taking into consideration their length of qualifying services, such as earned leave and leave encashment which have not been sanctioned and paid to them despite the demand made to the respondents. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The petitioners are entitled to earned leave and leave encashment as a regular Government employee. It is not known as to why the respondents have not released these benefits on their retirement. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that such petitions have been filed at number of occasions and allowed by the court. He has cited at the Bar the judgments delivered by the Division Bench of this court in DBCSA (W) No. 61/2003 decided on 27.7.2004 and DBCSA (W) No. 386/2003 decided on 18.1.2005. Vide these judgments, similar relief, in similar circumstances, prayed for by the petitioners therein has been granted by the court. These judgments have attained finality as their correctness and legality has not been challenged by the respondents. The respondents, therefore, are duty bound to extend the similar treatment to the similarly situated employees, such as petitioners. 5. Despite that the petitioners have been forced to approach the court seeking similar relief as the respondents have denied the said relief despite the fact that the court has commanded the respondents to release the benefits, laying down the law that if an employee is initially appointed on work-charged Establishment and subsequently brought on regular establishment, such employee is entitled to the benefits of earned leave and leave encashment. While dealing with similar facts and the proposition of law in writ petition No. 2342/2002 decided on 21.3.2005, titled Gyanchand and Ors. v. The Secretary PWD & Ors. , the co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed as under : "Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the matter herein is squarely covered by the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the Case of State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. The Secretary PWD & Ors. , the co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed as under : "Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the matter herein is squarely covered by the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the Case of State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Kishanlal and Ors. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 61/2003 decided on 27.7.2004 as also in the case of State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Shankar Lal and Ors. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 386/2003 decided on 18.1.2005 . Without disputing the applicability of aforesaid two judgments of the Division bench of this court, as mentioned above, it is however, being vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Rules known as Rajasthan Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads) including Gardens, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Departments Work-charge Employees Service Rules, 1964 were not taken into consideration and by virtue of Rule 16 of the aforesaid Rules, the Work Charge Employee is not entitled to the benefit of leave encashment or earned leave and regular Government employee is only entitled to the same. This argument has to be rejected straightway. Surely, the petitioners started their career as work charge employees and thereafter their services were regularised and they were taken on regular establishment. Once, their status enhanced from work charge to regular employee the Rules of 1964 cannot be held applicable to them. The applicability of Rules of 1964 came to an end immediately when they were taken on regular establishment. The only defence projected by the respondents in opposing the cause of the petitioners is thus found to be hollow and consequently rejected. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is allowed. The directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid two judgments with regard to leave encashment or earned leave, would be applicable in the instant case as well." 6. The petitioners being similar situated, the law laid down in the judgments of the Division Benches (supra) has to be followed by the respondents and the petitioners are held entailed to the same relief. 7. The court has time and again laid down the law, as referred to above and is required to be implemented and followed by the concerned Heads of the Departments throughout the State, extending the same benefit to the similarly situated persons. 7. The court has time and again laid down the law, as referred to above and is required to be implemented and followed by the concerned Heads of the Departments throughout the State, extending the same benefit to the similarly situated persons. The respondents should not create the circumstances forcing such employees to approach the court, while the respondents know that they have no defence to defeat the cause of such employees, in the court of law. Therefore, a direction is required to be issued to the State to provide equal and similar treatment to all such similarly situated employees. The Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan is directed to issue instructions to all concerned Heads of the Departments, within a period of four weeks, to decide the cases of such employees in accordance with the law laid down by the Division Benches of this Court.The writ petition is allowed accordingly.Writ Petition Allowed. *******