Ku. Onkar Thawait Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 7

¶2

2024:CGHC:40995

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 1661 of 2020

¶6

Ku. Onkar Thawait D/o Late Devnarayan Thawait Aged About 57 Years Posted As Lady Health Visitor At Community Health Center, Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Director Health Services Directorate Health Services, Indravati Bhawan, 3^rd Floor, Block-A, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Joint Director (Nursing) Directorate Health Services, Indravati Bhawan, 3^rd Floor, Block-A, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer District Hospital Premises, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

¶14

	... Respondents
For Petitioner	: Mr. Shantam Awasthi Advocate
For State	: Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer

¶15

2 / 7

¶16

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board

¶17

17/10/2024

¶18

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

¶19

“10.1. To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents.

¶20

10.2. To kindly quash the order impugned to the extent where the respondents have extraordinary leave without pay.

¶21

10.3. To kindly direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of earned leave to the petitioner as sufficient leave available in her leave record.

¶22

10.4. To kindly pass any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case even by moulding of relief in favour of the petitioner.”

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is working as Lady Health Visitor (LHV) since 1986 and posted at Sector Bhanvarpur Community Health Center, Basna, DistrictMahasamund. Prior to 2016, in her entire past service, she has not taken any long leave. To meet out emergent situation in relation to some household work, petitioner submitted an application for grant of earned leave from 01.01.2016 to 16.02.2016 vide application dated 07.12.2015. Application was submitted in prescribed format as provided under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “ Leave Rules 2010 ”). However, respondents kept sitting over the application and have not taken any decision on the same. Presuming that her application would be

¶24

3 / 7

¶25

allowed, petitioner went on leave. Petitioner thereafter further submitted an application for extension of leave from 16.02.2016 to 31.03.2016, however, the said application was also not replied. Petitioner thereafter fell ill and therefore she further extended leave till 04.10.2016 and joined her services along with medical certificate on 05.10.2016. Petitioner submitted medical certificate before the competent authority on 17.10.2016. Medical certificate is issued by the competent government doctor in the prescribed format. He submits that respondent No.2 while considering the application of the petitioner, without assigning any reason as to why leave which is available in the leave account of petitioner cannot be considered and adjusted, has passed order Annexure P-1 sanctioning leave of the petitioner as non-salaried leave. The action on the part of respondent No.2 in passing order Annexrue P-1 is per se arbitrary. Aggrieved with the decision of respondent, petitioner submitted representation before respondent. Thereafter, vide letter dated 17.05.2019, respondent No.3 wrote letter to respondent No.4 seeking certain information as mentioned therein, upon which, respondent No.4 forwarded letter on 24.06.2019 supplying information as sought for by respondent No.3, recommending for grant of leave and also mentioned that petitioner is low-paid employee and further specified that petitioner is having 300 days earned leave and 400 days halfpay leave in her leave account . But even then respondent No.2 has not re-considered claim of petitioner and passed fresh order.

¶26

Learned counsel for the State submits that petitioner is a government employee and he could have proceed on leave only after her leave application is allowed and accepted. Though petitioner has submitted

¶27

4 / 7

¶28

application seeking earned leave from 01.01.2016 to 16.02.2016, however, without there being any sanction by the competent authority, petitioner went on leave and therefore there is no error in the order Annexure P-1 passed by respondent No.2. He further contended that even otherwise petitioner would be entitle for the benefit of pay of earned leave at the time of retirement and therefore no loss is caused to her.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition.

¶30

Undisputed facts of the case are that petitioner is low paid employee and is working as Lady Health Visitor and posted in rural area. Petitioner, as per pleading in the writ petition, was employed since 1986. In the impugned order Annexure P-1, there is no mention that the petitioner is habitual in taking leave without being prior permission of the competent authority. However, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that before 2016, in her past service, petitioner has not taken any long leave. Even in the letter Annexure P-14 dated 24.06.2019 there is no mention by the Controlling Authority i.e. respondent No.4 that petitioner is habitual of taking unauthorized long leave.

¶31

From documents, it is also appearing that petitioner has submitted leave application three weeks prior to date from which petitioner has sought leave. Application was submitted by the petitioner on 07.12.2015 requesting for leave from 01.01.2016. Rule 13 of the Rules, 2010 deals with Application for Leave. Under sub -Rule (2) of Rule 13 it is mention that applications for leave on grounds other than ill health has to be made at least three weeks before such date on

¶32

5 / 7

¶33

which the employee is to go on leave. Submission of leave application on 07.12.2015 is not disputed. From the reply submitted by respondent-State, it is appearing that petitioner has submitted application within prescribed time under the Leave Rules 2010.

¶34

Annexure P-1 was passed on 07.05.2018 sanctioning the leave as ‘leave without pay’. Aggrieved with which petitioner submitted representation on 19.06.2018, 23.04.2019 through proper channel before respondent No.2. However, it appears that vide letter dated 17.05.2019, respondent No.3 sought some information from respondent No.4 in the case of petitioner. Operative portion of the letter dated 17.05.2019 is reproduced as under:-

¶35

" उ्ሹ संबंध में लेख है कि� �ु० ओं�ार थवाईत, एल.एच.व्ही. �ा संचालनालय �े आदेश ्ቅ मां�/03/106/नኌ᭪सग/2018/413, किदनां� 07.05.2018 ्ቛारा इन�े अनुपቝኌ+थत अवधिध किदनां� 01.01.2016 से किदनां� 04.10.2016 �ो असाधारण (अवैतकिन�) अव�ाश +वी�ृत कि�या गया है। संबंधिधत ने संदቝኌ2त प्ቔ �े माध्यम से उ्ሹ +वी�ृत कि�ये गये अव�ाश �े +थान पर उन�े अव�ाश लेखा में उपलब्ध अव�ाश �ा उ्ቤेख �र अቌኌ8त एवं लघु�ृत अव�ाश +वी�ृत �रने �ा किनवेदन कि�या गया है। अतः किनद;शानुसार ्ቚ�रण में किनम्नलिललिखत 8ान�ारी उपलब्ध �रावें।

¶36

�ु० ओं�ार थवाईत, एल.एच. व्हीं ्ቛारा आवेकिदत अव�ाश +थानांतरण से बाधिधत है अथवा नहीं ?

¶37

�ु० ओं�ार थवाईत, एल.एच.व्हीं �े अव�ाश आवेदन �ा परी्ቌण �र उसे +वी�ृत कि�ये 8ाने �े संबंध में अपना +प्ቖ अकिमगत/अनुशंसा देवें।

¶38

�ु० थवाईत �े सेवापुቝኌ+त�ा �े ्ቚथम पृ्቗ एवं उसमें द8C अव�ाश लेखा किववरण �ी सत्याकिपत ्ቚमाणिणत छाया्ቚधित उपलब्ध �रावें।

¶39

संबंधिधत �े अव�ाश धितणिथ अवधिध अथाCत किदनां� 01.01.2016 से किदनां� 04.10.2016 �ी ቝኌ+थधित में उन�े अव�ाश लेखा में कि�तना कि�तना अव�ाश सं्ቇाकिहत था।"

¶40

Pursuant to letter written by respondent No.3, respondent No.4 has

¶41

forwarded letter on 24.06.2019 giving information as sought for by

¶42

6 / 7

¶43

respondent No.3. Information supplied by respondent No.3 is extracted below for ready reference:-

¶44

“ उपरो्ሹ संदቝኌ2त प्ቔ �े माध्यम से �ु ओं�ार थवाईत, एल.एच.व्ही., सेक्टर 2ंवरपुर, बसना, जि8ला-महासमुन्द (छ.ग.) �े अव�ाश ्ቚ�रण (किदनां� 01.01.2016 से 04.10. 2016 त�) �े संबंध में 04 किबन्दुओं में 8ान�ारी चाही गई है। अतएव संबंधिधत �मCचारी �ी सेवा अणि2लेख �े अनुसार आप�े ्ቛारा चाही गई 8ान�ारी किनम्नानुसार है:-

¶45

संबंधिधत �मCचारी ्ቛारा आवेकिदत अव�ाश +थानांतरण से बाधिधत नहीं है।

¶46

संबंधिधत �मCचारी ्ቛ ारा किदनां� 01.01.2016 से 15.02.2016 rd ?kjsyq �ायC हेतु अቌኌ8त अव�ाश 16.02.2016 से 31.03.2016 त� परिरवारिर� �ायC हेतु अቌኌ8त अव�ाश एवं किदनां� 01.04.2016 से 04.10.2016 त� +वयं �े उपचार हेतु अव�ाश संबंधी आवदन ्ቚ+तुत कि�या गया था। संबंधिधत अल्प वेतन2ोगी �मCचारी होने �े आधार पर उन�ा अव�ाश +वी�ृत �रने �ी अनुशंसा �ी 8ाती है।

¶47

संबंधिधत �मCचारी �े सेवापुቝኌ+त�ा �े ्ቚथम पृ्቗ एवं उसमें द8C अव�ाश लेखा किववरण �ी सत्याकिपत छाया्ቚधित इस प्ቔ �े साथ संल्ሿ है।

¶48

संबंधिधत �े अव�ाश अवधिध अथाCत किदनां� 01.01.2016 से किदनां� 04.10.2016 �ी ቝኌ+थधित में उन�े अव�ाश लेखा में 300 किदवस अቌኌ8त अव�ाश एवं 400 fnol अኚ᭽Cवैतकिन� अव�ाश शेष है। अतएव उपरो्ሹानुसार 8ान�ारी सहप्ቔों सकिहत आवश्य� �ायCवाही हेतु izsf"kr gS ।"

¶49

From documents it is appearing that respondent No.3 on the representation submitted by petitioner though has taken cognizance but has not taken any decision even after calling requisite information from respondent No.4. Document further mention that petitioner is having in her account earned leave of 300 days and half- pay leave 400 days and prayer of the petitioner in the representation is that leave may be adjusted against the leave available in her account. Authorities could have considered for adjusting the leave against

¶50

7 / 7

¶51

half- paid leave or the other leave available in the account, considering the prayer made by the petitioner. No decision has been taken on representation submitted by the petitioner and, therefore, in aforementioned facts of the case, respondent No.2 is directed to take decision on representation submitted by the petitioner, Annexure P- 13 letter of respondent No.3 dated 17.05.2019, in the light of the information forwarded by respondent No.4 vide letter dated 24.06.2019, giving liberal consideration, keeping in mind that petitioner is a low-paid employee, working in rural area. Decision be taken by respondent No.2 expeditiously, preferably within a period of

¶52

3 months from the date of receipt of order.

¶53

Writ petition is accordingly disposed off with the aforementioned observation and direction.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶56

Praveen

Ku. Onkar Thawait v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku. Onkar Thawait v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devendra Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jeetin Dube Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Asharam Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kirtan Kumar Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manikram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohan Lal Prajapati Vs the State of Chhattisgarh