1 2025:CGHC:16523 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7090 of 2017  Raipur Development Authority Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Bhakta Mata Karma Vaivasahik Parisar, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Satish Shukla S/o Late Ishwari Prasad Shukla Aged About 64 Years R/o Near Ankur Hardware Sundar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2. District Legal Service Authority Pensioners Lok Adalat, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Satish Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 08-04-2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- 10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be plased to quashed and set-aside the order dated 09/10/2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No. 2. 10.2 Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted. 10.3 Cost of the petition. 2 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, respondent No. 1 was appointed as a contingency paid employee to the post of Lower Division Clerk vide order dated 13.07.1981. He further submits that respondent No. 1 and 24 other employees were appointed as ad-hoc employees under the petitioner vide order dated 01.09.1984. He contends that the set-up for the petitioner-department was sanctioned by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh on 30.07.1995 and thereafter services of respondent No. 1 were regularized vide order dated 27.07.1995; subsequently, he retired from service on 31.03.2016 and retiral dues have already been paid for the regular service period. He further contends that respondent No. 1 has claimed leave encashment and gratuity pertaining to the period between 01.09.1984 till 27.07.1995 on the ground that he was appointed against a sanctioned and vacant post in the year 1984 but the services of respondent No.1 were regularized in the year 1995, therefore he would not be entitled to receive the leave encashment and gratuity pertaining to the period between 01.09.1984 to 27.07.1995. He further argues that Pensioners’ Lok Adalat, District Legal Services Authority, Raipur passed the order in Pension Case No. 05/2016 on 09.10.2017 (Annexure P/1) contrary to the provisions of Rule 15-A (अ) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. He prays to quash the order dated 09.10.2017. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 submits that the order dated 01.09.1984 clearly demonstrates that respondent No. 1 was appointed against a sanctioned and vacant post. He further submits that a proposal was sent to the State Government after the appointment of respondent No. 1 and 24 other employees for 3 approval and it has never been rejected by the State. He contends that respondent No. 1 was working on the post of Lower Division Clerk therefore the State Government vide letter dated 13.07.1995 sanctioned 15 posts of Lower Division Clerk and services of respondent No. 1 and 14 other Lower Division Clerks were adjusted against the sanctioned set-up. He further contends taking into consideration earlier services rendered by respondent No. 1, the order of regularization was passed by the petitioner on 27.07.1995. He argues that respondent No. 1 was an ad-hoc employee under the petitioner, therefore, he is entitled to receive the leave encashment and gratuity counting his services from 01.09.1984. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5) Rule 15-A (अ) and (ब) of the Rules, 1976 reads as under:- नियम 15-ए- तदर्थ सेवा की गणा - तदर्थ सेवा अर्हकारी र्होगी; यनिद- (अ) तदर्थ नियुनि नियनिमत पद के निवरुद्ध र्थी तर्था नियुनि निबा सेवा में व्यवधा नियनिमत की गई र्है, अर्थवा (ब) उच्च पद पर तदर्थ नियुनि स्र्थायी, स्र्थाापन्न अर्थवा अस्र्थायी र्हैसिसयत में धारिरत निम् पद से पदोन्नतित र्होे पर की गई र्थी । 6) Respondent No. 1 has claimed leave encashment and gratuity for the period from 01.09.1984 till 27.07.1995 and an application in this regard was moved before the Pensioners’ Lok Adalat, DLSA, Raipur. The petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing and thereafter, the order was passed in favor of respondent No. 1 according to the provisions of Rule 15-A (अ) of the Rules, 1976. 4 7) A perusal of the order of appointment dated 01.09.1984 would show that respondent No. 1 and 24 other employees were appointed against the sanctioned and vacant posts and the pay-scale was also sanctioned. Those 25 employees were appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk and they were required to pass typing examination within a period of two years from 01.09.1984. The letter dated 13.07.1995 would show that the set-up for Raipur Development Authority was sanctioned by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh and according to that set-up, 15 posts of Lower Division Clerk were sanctioned and services of respondent No.1 and 14 other Lower Division Clerks were adjusted against the sanctioned set-up. Respondent No. 1 after retirement moved an application before the Pensioners’ Lok Adalat, DLSA, Raipur and vide order dated 09.10.2017 the petitioner was directed to make payment of leave encashment and gratuity to respondent No. 1 in accordance with Rule 15-A (अ) of the Rules, 1976 counting service period between 01.09.1984 till 27.07.1995. 8) Taking into consideration the reasons assigned by the Pensioner’s Lok Adalat, DLSA, Raipur; the provisions entailed in Rule 15-A (अ) of the Rules, 1976; the order of appointment and the order of regularization, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). 9) The interim relief, if any, granted earlier, stands vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya