WP/1199/2024 of SMT. VASUNDHRA PANDIT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 5 February 2024

1. SMT. VASUNDHRA PANDIT W/O SHRI ASHOKPANDIT, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:PENSIONER (RETIRED SAHAYAK SHIKSHAKPRATHMIK GOVT. REGIYAPURA VIDISHA) ATPRESENT ADDRESS DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYAPRADESH)PANDIT, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:PENSIONER (RETIRED SAHAYAK SHIKSHAKPRATHMIK GOVT. REGIYAPURA VIDISHA) ATPRESENT ADDRESS DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYAPRADESH)

2. SHRI OM PRAKASH SAXENA S/O SHRIKANHAIYALAL, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,OCCUPATION: PENSIONER (RETIRED SAHAYAKSHIKSHAK MADHYAMIK GOVT. SATPADAVIDISHA) AT PRESENT ADDRESS DISTRICTVIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)KANHAIYALAL, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,OCCUPATION: PENSIONER (RETIRED SAHAYAKSHIKSHAK MADHYAMIK GOVT. SATPADAVIDISHA) AT PRESENT ADDRESS DISTRICTVIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. SMT. MANORAMA CHOUBEY W/O SHRI SURESHCHOUBEY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,OCCUPATION:PENSIONER (RETIRED SAHAYAKSHIKSHAK PRATHMIK GOVT. JATPURA VIDISHA)AT PRESENT ADDRESS DISTRICT VIDISHA(MADHYA PRADESH)CHOUBEY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,OCCUPATION:PENSIONER (RETIRED SAHAYAKSHIKSHAK PRATHMIK GOVT. JATPURA VIDISHA)AT PRESENT ADDRESS DISTRICT VIDISHA(MADHYA PRADESH)

4. SHRI RAMNATH SINGH RAJPUT S/O SHRI SURESHCHOUBEY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION:PENSIONER (RETIRED SAHAYAK SHIKSHAK MADHYAMIK GOVT. LASHKARPUR VIDISHA) ATPRESENT ADDRESS DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYAPRADESH)CHOUBEY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION:PENSIONER (RETIRED SAHAYAK SHIKSHAK MADHYAMIK GOVT. LASHKARPUR VIDISHA) ATPRESENT ADDRESS DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYAPRADESH)5.SMT. KRESH JAIN W/O SHRI PRAKASHCHANDRAJAIN, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION:PENSIONER (RETIRED SAHAYAK SHIKSHAKPRATHMIK GOVT. JAROD, VIDISHA) AT PRESENTADDRESS DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYAPRADESH)JAIN, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION:PENSIONER (RETIRED SAHAYAK SHIKSHAKPRATHMIK GOVT. JAROD, VIDISHA) AT PRESENTADDRESS DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYAPRADESH)

(BY SHRI AJEET SINGH BHADORIYA - ADVOCATE )

.....PETITIONER

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGHPRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATIONDEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL(MADHYA PRADESH)

2. COLLECTOR VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. JILA SHIKSHA ADHIKARI VIDISHA (MADHYAPRADESH)

4. AAHRAN SAVITRAN ADHIKARI (DDO), BLOCKSHIKSHA ADHIKARI VIDISHA/BASODA, VIDISHA(MADHYA PRADESH)

5. JILA KOSALAY ADHIKARI, VIDISHA (MADHYAPRADESH)

(BY SHRI S.S. KUSHWAHA - GOVT. ADVOCATE)

.....RESPONDENTS

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed theORDER

following:

Heard on the question of admission and grant of interim relief.

By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thepetitioners are seeking the following relief (s): - 1- ;gfd] ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk izLrqr ;kfpdk Lohdkj dj ;kfpdkdrkZx.k }kjk izLrqr;kfpdk Lohdkj djrs gq, ;kfpdkdrkZx.k dks e/; izns'k 'kklu for foHkkx ds vkns'kfnukad 08@03@19 ,oa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fjV fiVh'ku u- 2948@2008ohjsUnz fdysnkj fo:) e/; izns'k jkT; o vU; ,oa fjV vihy 484@2011 e/; izns'kjkT; o vU; fo:) ohjsUnz fdysnkj esa ikfjr vkns'k@fn'kk funsZ'k ,usDpj ih@2 rFkke0iz0 flfoy lsok,sa vodk'k fu;e 1977 ds izko/kkuksa ds dze esa ik=rkuqlkj dqy 300fnol ds vftZr vodk'k ds uxnhdj.k Hkqxrku 30 fnol esa C;kt lfgr ekuuh;loksZPp U;k;ky; ds izdj.k flfoy vihy ua- 399@2021 vkU/kz izns'k jkTo vU;fo:) Jherh nhukogh y{eh dkes'kokjh esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 08 Qjojh 2021 dsvko';d ikyu ds dze esa Lohd`r dj Hkqxrku iznku fd;s tkus ds vkns'k@funsZ'kizfr;kfpdkdrkZx.k foHkkxh; izkf/kdkfj;ksa dks iznku djus dh d`ik djsaA

2- ;g fd vU; vkns'k@funsZ'k tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr le>s U;k;fgr esaikfjr fd, tkus dh d`ik djsaA

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents are

not making payment of leave encashment (to which they are entitled) to thepetitioners, while the issue regarding payment of Earned Leave has already beendecided on 13.10.2010 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Gwalior inWrit Petition No.2948/2008 (Virendra Kiledar v. State of M.P. and others),affirmed by Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior in Writ AppealNo.484/2011 (The State of Madhya Pradesh & others v. Virendra Kiledar S/oGattu Lal Kiledar & another) vide order dated 27.04.2012. According to him,the petitioners are entitled for 300 days leave encashment. Therefore, thepresent petition be also disposed of in view of the directions contained in theorder passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent / State, on the other hand, couldnot dispute passing of order in W.P. No.2948/2008 and submit that ifrepresentation is submitted by the petitioners in that regard, then the same shallbe duly considered by the respondents authority.

4. In view of the aforesaid legal position, it is directed that if petitioners submit a representation to the Competent Authority of the respondents withinfifteen days from today, then the same shall be considered and decided by thesaid authority, in accordance with law, keeping in view the order dated13.10.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.2948/2008 (S) within a period of twomonths from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on themerits of the case.

6. With the aforesaid direction, Writ Petition stands disposed of.

All the other pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall standdisposed of.

ar

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)JUDGE