Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 475 (MP)

Syed Majhar Ulhaque v. State of M. P.

2014-04-28

SUJOY PAUL

body2014
Judgment: Writ Petition No.7630/2013 was heard analogously with Writ Petitions No.7629/13, 7631/13, 589/14, 590/14, 591/14 and 834/14. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that similar questions of fact and law are involved in these matters and, therefore, matters may be analogously heard. Prayer accepted. 2. Shri S.P.Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of encashment of leave. The respondents have erred in not providing the said benefit. 3. The matter was heard on 24.4.2013. On the said date, Shri Jain took leave for providing similar orders passed by the Principal Seat. On the next date, he provided the orders passed by the Principal Seat in Writ Petition No. 11581/2013 (Prem Shankar Biliya vs. State of MP and another) and prayed that these petitions be disposed of in terms of the order passed by the Principal Seat. 4. Learned counsel for the parties were heard. 5. The Principal Seat has passed the following order :- “It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a representation made by the petitioner vide Annexure P-3 is pending consideration before the authorities. Certain instructions have been issued and the guidance has been asked for by the respondents from the higher authorities for passing the orders on such representation but since nothing is intimated to the petitioner as yet, the writ petition is required to be filed. It is already held by this Court in various cases that persons like petitioner would be entitled to encashment of 120 days leave period. That being so, let a decision be taken by the respondents on the representation of the petitioner within a month and necessary action be taken accordingly for encashment of leave in favour of the petitioner. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.” 6. In the opinion of this Court, the Principal Seat has passed an innocuous order, pursuant to which the respondents are bound to take a decision regarding entitlement of the petitioners regarding leave encashment. I find no difficulty in following the course adopted by the Principal Seat. 7. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.” 6. In the opinion of this Court, the Principal Seat has passed an innocuous order, pursuant to which the respondents are bound to take a decision regarding entitlement of the petitioners regarding leave encashment. I find no difficulty in following the course adopted by the Principal Seat. 7. Thus, as prayed by Shri S.P.Jain and as ordered by the Principal Seat, these petitions are disposed of with following directions:- (i) The petitioners shall prefer separate detailed representations along with relevant documents and submit it before the respondents No.1 and 2; (ii) In turn, the respondents shall examine the case of the petitioners by following the order passed in Writ Petition No. 11581/2013 (supra). The respondents shall take a final decision on the representation within sixty days and shall take necessary action accordingly, as directed in Prem Shankar Biliya (supra). With the aforesaid, writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.