IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17740 of 2025 ================================================================

STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Versus JEELUBHAI RANCHHODBHAI AAL ================================================================

Appearance:

MS AGNEYA MANKAD for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR KARAN K PAUL(11611) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Date : 10/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 02.08.2024 in Recovery Application No.396 of 2023 and order dated 27.07.2023 in Recovery Application No.30 of 2018 on the ground that the calculation of leave encashment made by the learned Labour Court is not in conformity with the Gujarat Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2002.

2. Learned AGP submits that by the impugned order, the Labour Court has awarded Rs.2,55,473/- to the respondent towards his entitlement to leave encashment. She submits that the said amount has been arrived at by using a multiplier of 26 days instead of 30 days. She submits that if the correct multiplier is applied, then the respondent is entitled only for Rs.2,21,409/-. She, therefore, submits that the learned Labour Court has therefore granted an excess of Rs.34,064/-. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order be modified accordingly.

3. Learned counsel Mr. Karan Paul appearing on behalf of respondent submits that the respondent was entitled for leave encashment on his retirement. He submits that the respondent has retired on 30.11.2015 after putting in service of 38 years with the petitioner. He submits that despite the entitlement, the petitioner did not pay the said benefit. He, therefore, submits that the respondent was therefore constrained to file Recovery Application No.30 of 2018 on 19.05.2018. That thereafter, the learned Labour Court by order dated 27.07.2023 after 5 years has granted the leave encashment benefit to which the respondent was legally entitled to. He submits that the petitioner has thereafter paid only Rs.2,21,409/-. He submits that the petitioner has not complied with the direction of 6% simple interest as well as has not paid the cost of Rs.5,001/- as awarded by the learned Labour Court.

4. Learned counsel Mr. Paul for the respondent submits that thereafter the respondent-workman was constrained to file Recovery Application No.396 of 2023 for the remaining amount of Rs.33,695/- along with 6% simple interest thereon and payment of cost of Rs.5,001/-. He submits that by order dated 02.08.2024, the learned Labour Court, Rajkot has allowed the said application and directed the petitioner to pay the remaining amount along with interest and costs in the present case.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considered the submissions and perused the documents on record.

6. The petitioner herein is impugning the order dated 02.08.2024 in Recovery Application No.396 of 2023 and order dated 27.07.2023 in Recovery Application No.30 of 2018 on the ground that the respondent is not entitled to the difference in the amount of Rs.33,695/-.

7. The respondent had retired on 30.11.2015. For his legal entitlement of leave encashment, the respondent herein, who was a daily wager, has been made to run from pillar to post for recovery of leave encashment of 300 days. The respondent is litigating for such entitlement since the year 2018. Till date, even though the Labour Court has passed order dated 27.07.2023 in Recovery Application No.30 of 2018, the petitioner has not complied with the same and the respondent was made to once again approach the Labour Court by filing another Recovery Application No.396 of 2023.

8. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and taking note of the conduct of the petitioner in denying the legal entitlement benefit to the respondent, this Court has not inclined to interfere with the impugne