JUDGMENT

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. - Short question arising for decision making in the present writ petition is -

Whether services rendered by a workcharged employee in the said capacity would make him entitle for leave encashment only for the reason that such period of service has been counted for calculation of qualifying service for grant of pension ?

2. Brief facts of the case, necessary for appreciating the issue, are that the petitioner was employed as contingency paid employee before being regularised in the service. On his retirement he was allowed all the pensionary benefits including leave encashment for the period during which he rendered services as a regular employee, however, leave encashment for the period during which he served in the contingency paid establishment was not allowed, therefore, he moved representation before the respondents, which has been turned down vide Annexure - P/1. The representation was decided by a reasoned order pursuant to the direction of this Court in WP No.1810 of 2002 directing the respondents to decide petitioner's grievance pertaining to the subject issue. The reason assigned for refusal to allow leave encashment for the period during which he has rendered service in the capacity of workcharged employee is that by virtue of circular dated 24-9-2003 (Annexure - R/1) the Board has not made applicable the benefit of encashment of earned leave to a member of workcharged employee.

3. Shri Koshta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would harp on the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board and Another v T.N. Karunakaran, LPA No.233 of 2002 (decided on 12-5-2003) and other connected matters, which, in turn, was based on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Agrawal v State of M.P. and Others, (1995) Supp3 SCC 67 .

4. In substance Shri Koshta would argue that once the period rendered as contingency paid employee is counted for the purpose of qualifying service for pension it is deemed that such period is regularised for all purposes and, thus, the entire period of service rendered in the capacity of contingency paid employee would be treated to have been rendered as regular employee and leave encashment would automatically be admissible to the petitioner.

5. Shri Abhishek Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, per contra, would argue that leave encashment is never treated to be a part of pension or pensionary benefits. According to Shri Sinha, the legal position is settled that period rendered in the capacity of contingency paid employee would be counted for qualifying service for pension, however, the same does not apply for granting benefit of leave encashment. Learned counsel would next submit that Section 2 (1) (c) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 (henceforth 'the Rules, 1977') expressly excludes applicability of the Rules to a member of contingency paid employee.

6. There is no dispute about factual position that petitioner has been granted benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits including leave encashment for the regular period of service. The petitioner claims leave encashment for the period during which he worked in the capacity of contingency paid employee.

7. In T.N. Karunakaran (supra) the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that the service rendered by an employee in the work charged establishment has to be counted for the purpose of calculating the qualifying service under Rule 42 (1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (henceforth 'the Rules, 1976'), however, it nowhere holds that such service would also be counted for according benefit of leave encashment. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Agrawal (supra) has not dealt with the issue of admissibility of leave encashment t