IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

th

ON THE 11 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 23372 of 2021 KESHAV RAO GURNULE Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Bhanu Prakash Singh - learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri K.K. Prajapati- learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State.

WITH WRIT PETITION No. 23402 of 2021 BAL KISHAN PUROHIT Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Bhanu Prakash Singh - learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri K.K. Prajapati- learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State.

ORDER

1. In view of the similar issue invoked in both writ petitions, both are decided by this common order.

2. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners claiming benefit of encashment of earned leave after their retirement. It is not in dispute that both the petitioners were working in work-charged establishment of the respondent- Public Health Engineering Department and were posted in the office of respondent no.4. They retired from service in the year 2021. After their retirement, they raised the claim for payment of leave encashment and when the same was not considered, the present writ petitions were filed.

3. The petitioners have placed reliance upon the order passed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.470/2012. However, the said decision of the Division Bench was subsequently reviewed vide order dated 21/07/2014 in R.P. No.506/2012 (Shyama Bai Vs. State of M.P.). The Division Bench has held as under:-

"Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate the petitioners/State.

Shri Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.

Heard counsel for the parties.

Although this petition has been filed as Review Petition, but the relief claimed by the State is one of speaking to the minutes of order. Inasmuch as, in the 6th line of last paragraph of internal page 3 of the order, it is incorrectly mentioned as “Leave Encashment”, whereas it ought to have been noted as “Earned Leave”

referable to Rule 4 of the 1977 Rules.

The petitioners submitted that need to file review petition has arisen because the respondent(s) have insisted for allowing them to encash the leave of 120 days. According to the respondent(s), the decision permits them to encash 120 days of earned leave. The argument of respondent(s) will have to be stated to be rejected. For, in the same paragraph, the Court has noted that the respondent would be entitled to the benefit of earned leave of 120 days. The concerned paragraph reads thus:

“We have considered the submission made by learned counsel for appellants. From perusal of the grounds mentioned in clause (b) of memorandum of the appeal filed by the appellants, it is apparent that the appellants have admitted that under Rule 4 of the 1977 Rules, the employees are entitled to 120 days' leave encashment. Thus, in view of the stand taken by the appellants themselves, the respondent is entitled to the benefit of encashment of 120 days' earned leave. Accordingly, the appellants are directed to extend the benefit of encashment of 120 days leave to the respondent which is admissible under the Rules within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, if not already paid. Accordingly, the order passed by learned Single Judge is modified to the extent indicated above. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of.”

[Emphasis supplied]

The highlighted portion, therefore, will have to be understood to mean that the respondent(s) have succeeded to the extent of relief of benefit of 120 days of earned leave as per Rule 4 of Rules of 1977 and not encashment of leave as such.

Counsel for the respondent relies on Rule 7 of Rules 1977. That Rule enables the employee on earned leave and maternity leave to get benefit of leave salary equal to the rate of pay or salary which has been drawn for the month immediately prior to the month in which the leave is taken. That does not result in all