Page No.1 of 3 IN CRA-414-2017 2025:CGHC:3664 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 414 of 2017 Dr. Manohar Lal Thawait S/o Dwarika Prasad Thawait Aged About 72 Years Retired Senior Medical Officer, R/o Gharghoda, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health of Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Additional Secretary, Department of Health of Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Director, Directorate Health Services, Indravati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 21 . 01 .202 5 1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the grievance of the petitioner is that firstly though by order dated 30.06.2004, he was granted extra-ordinary leave alongwith leave salary for the said period, however, the said order has subsequently been amended by the respondent No.02 vide impugned order dated 22.09.2016 by holding that the petitioner is not entitled to get leave SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Date: 2025.01.24 10:17:00 +0530 Page No.2 of 3 IN CRA-414-2017 salary for the period he was granted extra-ordinary leave. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 22.09.2016 is bad, illegal and arbitrary for the reason that once it is held that the petitioner be paid leave salary for the period he was granted extra-ordinary leave, the same cannot be amended/withdrawn by the respondent No.02. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside and present petition deserves to be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the impugned order dated 22.09.2016 and submits that by virtue of sub-rule (4) of Rule 36 of the Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules, a Government Servant on extra-ordinary leave is not entitled to any leave salary, therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. In order to answer the plea, it would be relevant here to notice Rule 36(4) of the Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rule, which reads as under: “36. Leave salary- (1) xxxx (4) A Government servant on extra-ordinary leave is not entitled to any leave salary.” 6. In light of the above quoted provision, it is quite clear that a Page No.3 of 3 IN CRA-414-2017 government servant/employee who is on extra-ordinary leave is not entitled to get leave salary. Therefore, the respondent No.02 is absolutely justified in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to get leave salary for the period he was granted extra-ordinary leave vide impugned order dated 22.09.2016. As such, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 22.09.2016, as the same has been passed in accordance with law. Consequently, this writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if