IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3992 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4036 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9620 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9621 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9624 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9622 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11325 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11393 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11332 of 2019 ========================================================== DAHOD DISTRICT PANCHAYAT THRU EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & 1 other(s) Versus KANTIBHAI PARSINGBHAI BARIYA ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 MR P C CHAUDHARI(5770) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Date : 14/11/2022 COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents waive service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. At the outset, learned advocates for the respective parties are ad idem that the issue is squarely covered by the order dated 01.09.2022 passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal No.7229 of 2022 and allied matters, wherein the Apex Court has held thus:

“Delay condoned.

In view of the Resolution No. W.C.E.-1588-(5)/(2)/G.2 dated 17-10-1988, the respondent employees are entitled to retirement benefits, gratuity, provident fund etc. In addition, they are entitled to two yearly optional leaves in total of 14 casual leaves, 30 days of earned leave and 20 day half pay leaves, as well as holiday on Sunday and during the national holidays/

occasions.

In view of the aforesaid position, we do not fine any good ground and reason to interfere with the directions given by the High Court to pay leave encashments on the retirement of the employees, as the same would pertain to encashment of the unused earned leaves. The payment is also in the nature of retirement benefits.

However, it is clarified that the aforesaid directions would not be treated as granting the respondents a status of permanent or regular employees.

Recording the aforesaid, the special leave petitions are dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.”

3. In the present writ petitions, the issue pertains to the grant of leave encashment to the respondent-employees. The Apex Court, as noticed hereinabove, has rejected the SLPs filed by the State Government against the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court conferring the benefit of leave encashment to the employees.

4. Since the issue is of no more res integra, the petitioner authority shall accordingly pay the necessary benefit of leave encashment to the respondent-employees within a period of six months from the date of receipt of writ of the order of this Court.

5. In this view of the matter, all the present writ petitions are rejected in light of the aforesaid order passed by the Apex Court. Rule is discharged.

6. Registry to place a copy of this order in each of the connected matters.

Sd/-

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)

NVMEWADA