Panchram Marbel Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Panchram Marbel Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

1

(WPS No. 3359 of 2018)

Digitally signed by ADITI ADITI DIWAN DIWAN KAIWART KAIWART Date: 2025.07.10 10:37:25 +0530

2025:CGHC:31342

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 3359 of 2018

1 - Panchram Marbel S/o Rajbahadur Marbel, Aged About 64 Years Headmaster, Govt. Primary School, Barpali, Block Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. R/o Village Devri, Post Katnai, Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

--- Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - District Education Officer, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

3 - Joint Director, Treasury And Account, Bilaspur Division Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

4 - Block Education Officer, Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

For Petitioner :- Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For State :- Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Panel Lawyer

2

(WPS No. 3359 of 2018)

SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board

08.07.2025

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondent authorities to pay Rs.1,70,140/- along with 12% interest to the petitioner for 101 days earned leave encashment.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only 139 days earned leave encashment has been paid to the petitioner instead of 240 days, which is not in accordance with law.

3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that order dated 21.12.2017 (Annexure R/1) has been passed by the Block Education Officer, Akaltara, in which it has been held that the petitioner is only entitled for encashment of 139 days earned leave and necessary amount of Rs.1,29,845/- & Rs.1,04,551/- have already been paid to the petitioner and no amount is outstanding. Furthermore, order dated 21.12.2017 passed by the Block Education Officer, Akaltara, wherein it has been held that the petitioner is only entitled for 139 days earned leave encashment has also not been challenged by the petitioner and, thus, it has become final. As such, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

3

(WPS No. 3359 of 2018)

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the materials available on the record with utmost circumspection.

5. In the case at hand, admittedly, pursuant to the first round of litigation, order dated 21.12.2017 was passed by the Block Education Officer, Akaltara, annexed along with the return filed by the State, holding that the petitioner is only entitled for 139 days earned leave encashment and necessary payment has already been made against it to the petitioner and no amount is outstanding. Moreover, the petitioner has made submission that earned leave has not been calculated properly and payment for only 139 days has been made but order dated 21.12.2017 has not been challenged by the petitioner and, therefore, the same has become final.

6. As such, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed. No cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

@d!t!