Dismissed¶41

Amir Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Service law – leave encashment

Chhattisgarh HC23 Jul 2025WPS/1354/2021

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amir Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPS No. 1354 of 2021, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 24.07.2025 by Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey. Retired Forester sought writ for payment of remaining 60 days' earned leave (300 vs 240 days encashment) under Rule 25 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977, invoking Article 300A; Court held 1977 Rules govern pre-2010 appointees, 2010 Rules not applicable, circular dated 12.5.2014 unchallenged, rejection order Annexure-P/1 unchallenged; petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

The Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 would apply in the case of the petitioner, and he is entitled to get leave encashment for a maximum of 240 days only. ¶40

Amir Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who was paid leave encashment for 240 days, is entitled to a writ direction to pay the remaining 60 days of earned leave (i.e., encashment for 300 days). +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

The petitioner has not challenged the Finance Department circular dated 12.5.2014 in the instant petition, which weighs against extending the entitlement beyond 240 days.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

The Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 would apply in the case of the petitioner, and he is entitled to get leave encashment for a maximum of 240 days only.

¶40

Key takeaways

The 2010 Rules nowhere state that they apply to a government servant appointed prior to that date, so they do not extend the petitioner's entitlement to 300 days; moreover, the Finance Department circular dated 12.5.2014, issued after the 2010 Rules, fixes the permissible limit of leave encashment at 240 days.ratio¶39
The petitioner has also not challenged the order (Annexure-P/1) by which his representation was rejected.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law — leave encashment — petitioner, appointed as Forester on 5.5.1977 and retired on superannuation on 30.6.2018, was granted leave encashment for 240 days and claimed the remaining 60 days (total 300 days) relying on Rule 25 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 and contending leave encashment is 'property' under Article 300A of the Constitution. Held: the Rules of 1977 apply to the petitioner, who rendered the major part of his service before the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010 came into force on 1.10.2010; the 2010 Rules nowhere state that they apply to government servants appointed earlier; the Finance Department circular dated 12.5.2014 fixing encashment at 240 days was never challenged, nor was the Divisional Forest Officer, Korba's order dated 28.1.2020 (Annexure-P/1) rejecting his representation. Entitlement capped at 240 days; writ petition dismissed, no costs.

SMT NIRMALA RAO

2025:CGHC:35994

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 1354 of 2021

¶7

1 - Amir Khan S/o Late Shri Abbas Khan Aged About 63 Years Resident Of Rajiv Gandhi Chauk, Gopal Marg No. 10, Majhawapara, Jarha Bhata, Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Pin 495001., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Forest Department , Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin 492002., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest Department Chhattisgarh Aranya Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Nava Raipur , Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh, Raipur Pin 492002., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - The Chief Conservator Of Forest Circle Bilaspur , District Bilaspur , Sindhi Colony Gate, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur 495 001., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - The Divisional Forest Officer Kosabadi, Korba Forest Division And District Korba Chhattisgarh Pin 495677., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Petitioner : Shri Alok Rishi, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy.G.A.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

24.07.2025

¶19

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

¶20

“10.1 To, call relevant records.

¶21

¶22

10.2 To, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be issue writ/ writs direction to pay remaining 60 days of Earned leave.

¶23

10.3. To, pass any other order/ relief to be deeming fit & just.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who was initially appointed to the post of Forester vide order dated 5.5.1977, retired on superannuation from the same post on 30.6.2018. He would contend that the petitioner is entitled to leave encashment according to the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977. He would further submit that the petitioner has been granted leave encashment of 240 days; however, as per Rule 25 of the Rules, 1977, he is entitled to leave encashment of 300 days. He would also submit that the amount of leave encashment constitutes “property” under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. He would contend that a representation was made by the petitioner, which has been rejected by the Divisional Forest Officer, Korba, vide order dated 28.1.2020. He would pray to quash the said order. Shri Alok Rishi, Advocate, has referred to Rule 25 of the Leave Rules of 2010.

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. She would submit that, according to the circular issued by the Finance Department, the petitioner is entitled to receive leave encashment for a maximum of 240 days. She would further submit that the authority concerned has rejected the representation of the petitioner, mentioning the circular issued by the State.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record.

¶27

¶28

Rule 25 of Rules, 1977, reads as under:-

¶29

25. Earned leave for Government servant serving in — Departments other than vacation department.

¶30

(1)(a)A Government servant who is serving in a Department other than vacation department shall be entitled to 30 days earned leave in every calendar year.

¶31

(b)The leave account of every Government servant shall be credited with earned leave in advance in two installments of 15 days each on 1st January and 1st July every year.

¶32

(c)The leave at the credit of a Government servant at a close of the previous half year shall be carried forward to the next half year subject to the condition that the leave so carried forward plus the credit for the half year do not exceed the maximum limit of [240] [Substituted by Notification No. 6- 1840-87-R-I-IV, dated 4-1-1988 (w.e.f. 1-7-1987).] days.

¶33

[x x x] [Omitted by Notification No. G-3-1-96-C-IV, dated 14-31996 (w.e.f. 10-5-1996).]

¶34

(2)Subject to the provision of sub-rule (3) tire maximum earned leave that may be granted at a time to a Government servant shall be 120 days.

¶35

(3)Earned leave may be granted to a Government servant exceeding a period of 120 days but not exceeding 180 days if the entire leave so granted or any portion thereof is spent outside India, Bangladesh, Burma, Ceylon, Bhutan, Nepal and Pakistan :

¶36

Provided that where earned leave exceeding a period of 120 days is granted under this sub-rule the period of such leave spent in India shall not in the aggregate exceed the aforesaid limit of 120 days. ”

¶37

The State of Chhattisgarh, Finance Department, issued a circular on 12.5.2014, which provides that an employee would be entitled to get leave encashment for a maximum period of 240 days. Under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977, the permissible limit for leave encashment was also 240 days. The Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010 came into force on 1st October, 2010. As per Rule 25 of the Rules, 2010, the permissible limit of leave

¶38

¶39

encashment is 300 days. In the present case, the petitioner continued in service for 8 years after 2010; however, he rendered a major part of his services prior to the enforcement of the 2010 Rules. He was appointed in the year 1977 when the Rules of 1977 were in force. In the Rule of 2010, it is nowhere stated that it will apply to a government servant appointed prior to this date. Further, the Finance Department has issued a circular on 12.5.2014 after the enactment of the Rules of 2010, where the permissible limit of leave encashment is mentioned as 240 days.

¶40

The petitioner has not challenged the circular dated 12.5.2014 in the instant petition. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the Rules of 1977 would apply in the case of the petitioner, and he would be entitled to get the leave encashment for a maximum of 240 days only. It is also noted that the petitioner has not challenged the order (Annexure -P/1) by which his representation was rejected.

¶41

Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed . No cost(s).

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶44

Nimmi

Amir Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amir Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramashanker Gupta Vs Shri Suraj Pal Gupta

Smt. Praveen Vs South Eastern Coal Field Ltd.

Jageshwar Singh Dhruv Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Subhash Sarkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Kumar Jayswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nishi Shukla Vs State of Chhattisgarh