Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11015 of 2020 Petitioner :- Umesh Chandra Pandey And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadh Behari Singh,Manish Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard Sri A.B.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Petitioners are before this Court assailing the order impugned dated 30.7.2019 passed by the third respondent with regard to withholding of the payment of leave encashment in absence of any direction of the Director of Fisheries. With a further request commanding the respondents to make payment of leave encashment to the petitioners within a fix period.
At the very outset, Sri A.B.Singh apprised to the Court that against the similar order impugned, Writ A No. 33680 of 2016 (Kishwar Ali Vs. State of U.P. And 3 Ors.) has been allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 4.1.2018, which was subjected to challenge in Special Appeal Defective No. 396 of 2018 (State of U.P. And 3 Ors. Vs. Kishwar Ali). The same was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 13.7.2018. The said order was again challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by means of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 28129 of 2018 (State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Kishwar Ali) and finally the same was dismissed by order dated 22.11.2018 and as such, once the order impugned has been set aside by learned Single Judge and the same has attained finality upto the Apex Court, in such circumstances, the similar treatment may also be extended to the petitioners.
For ready reference, the order dated 4.1.2018 is reproduced herein below.
"Heard Shri Awadh Behari Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner has filed the above noted writ petition challenging the order dated 25.05.2016 passed by the respondent No.3, the Deputy Director, Fisheries, Bareilly Division, Bareilly, whereby he has refused to make the payment of leave encashment amount due to the petitioner on the ground that as yet, no instructions have been received from the Directorate for payment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out to the letter dated 20.3.1987 issued by the Director, Fisheries, U.P. at Lucknow, wherein it has been merely provided that the employees of the Fisheries Department are entitled to all the benefits payable to the government servants including annual increments, leave encashment, etc.
The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that Fisheries Farmer Development Agency, Badaun is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and a Government Order dated 23.6.2000 has been issued regarding the service conditions of the employees working wherein it has been provided that the employees working in the Fisheries Department are not entitled to the benefits of the Government Order/Rules and Regulations of the State Government unless they are specifically applied to them. There is nothing on record to show that the Government Order dated 20.3.1987 relied upon by the petitioner, has been withdrawn or superseded by any fresh Government Order disentitling the petitioner to the relief of leave encashment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought on record the orders passed in the case of Babu Ram. Driver of Fish Farmer Development Agency, Raibareilly, Ahvaran Singh, Chowkidar, Fish Farmer Development Agency, Badaun and Mohd. Samim, Chowkidar, Fish Farmer Development Agency, Raibareilly, who have been paid leave encashment amounts. The orders in their favour have been annexed as Annexure No. R.A.-1 to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner.
In view of the factual and legal position, it is clear that the similarly situated employees have been paid leave encashment amount and the petitioner is being unduly discriminated. The order dated 25.5.2016 passed by the respondent No.3 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to make payment of leave encashment amount of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.
The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. "
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, once the similar controversy has already been addressed by this Court and so far as the factual and legal aspects are concerned, the same are not being disputed by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, this Court is of the opinion that the order impugned dated 30.7.2019 passed by the third respondent cannot sustain and accordingly, the same is hereby set aside.
The writ petition is allowed in terms of Kishwar Ali (supra). The respondents are directed to make payment of leave encashment amount of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.
Order Date :- 22.9.2021 S. Rahman