1 2025:CGHC:60658 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2330 of 2023 1 - Ram Raj Singh S/o. Sarman Singh, Aged About 36 Years R/o. Village And Post Udotgarh, Bhind, District Bhind (M.P.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home Department, New Delhi. 2 - Director General Cisf, Central Industrial Security Force, Headquater, 13 Cgo Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pin 110003 3 - Deputy Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force, Unit Secl Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Unit Secl Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - Assistant Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Unit Secl Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Leekesh Kumar, Advocate on behalf of Mrs. Renu Kochar, Advocate For respondent-UOI :- Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh, Advocate on VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 12.12.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent authorities to give Petitioner Earned leave and Half pay leave from date of appointment till date and duty discharged by petitioner 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the order dated 8.10.2021 (Annexure P/1) in the interest of justice 10.3 That this Hon'ble court may be further pleased to direct respondent authorities to pay the litigation expense which he incurred. 10.4 That this Hon'ble court may be further pleased to pass any other consequential and other orders/ writs which this Hon'ble court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts of the case are that Petitioner was posted as Constable/GD in CISF on 21.03.2010 on the basis of Schedule Tribe quota, thereafter he was transferred to CISF unit, SECL Bilaspur on 3 02.05.2019. That on 30.10.2021 petitioner was removed from service on account of false caste certificate produced by him. That the petitioner being aggrieved from the respondent authorities has made representation before Deputy Inspector General CISF unit SECL Bilaspur vide letter dated 22.11.2021 seeking payment for the Earned leave (E.L) and Half pay leave (HPL) duty performed by him from the Year 2010 to 2021 That respondent authorities vide letter dated 8.12.2021 replied to the representation without discussing the EL AND HPL of petitioner rejected the representation without assigning any reasons. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the Respondent authorities in depriving the Petitioner of his lawful entitlement to Earned Leave (EL), Half Pay Leave (HPL), weekly off, and benefits arising from duty performed on gazetted holidays is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and wholly without authority of law. It is submitted that leave earned by an employee in the course of service is his statutory right and constitutes his property, which cannot be withheld, curtailed or denied except in accordance with law. Despite the petitioner having continuously served from 2010 till his removal in 2021, the Respondents have failed to credit his earned leave and half pay leave for the entire period, thereby causing serious prejudice to him. Learned counsel further submits that under established service jurisprudence, an employee on half-pay leave or even under suspension is entitled to dearness allowance where the subsistence allowance or leave 4 salary falls below the admissible level, and such entitlement cannot be denied to the petitioner. It is further contended that the Petitioner has been compelled to work even on gazetted holidays and has been denied weekly off, yet no corresponding credit or leave encashment, apart from the statutory 30 days per year, has been granted to him. The cumulative actions of the Respondents amount to a clear violation of the petitioner’s service rights, recognized protections under service rules, and constitutional guarantees of fairness, non-arbitrariness and equality. Hence, the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the averments made by the Petitioner are vague, misleading, frivolous, and devoid of any merit, and therefore deserve outright rejection. It is submitted that the document relied upon by the Petitioner, namely L.S.U.S.Q. No. 186 dated 24.02.2015, pertains exclusively to personnel presently serving in the Force and cannot be applied to individuals who have been dismissed or removed from service. The Petitioner, having been removed from service, cannot claim the benefit of leave encashment or any leave standing to his credit. As per Rule 9(1) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, and the clarifications issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, a government servant who is dismissed or removed from service ceases to have any claim to leave at his credit from the date of such dismissal or removal. The DoP&T 5 letter No. 21011/08/2013-Estt(AL) categorically states that a dismissed or removed employee is not entitled to leave encashment of any kind. Hence, the Petitioner’s entire claim is contrary to the statutory rules governing the Force (CISF) and is wholly untenable. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for, and the instant writ petition, being devoid of substance, deserves dismissal at the threshold. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From a perusal of Rule 9(1) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T), it becomes clear that any claim to leave standing to the credit of a Government servant ceases on the date of his dismissal, removal, or resignation from service. 7. The position is further reinforced by the relevant DoP&T instructions, which categorically provide that a Government servant who is dismissed or removed from service ceases to have any claim to the leave at his credit from the date of such dismissal or removal. Thus, leave standing to the credit of such an employee lapses automatically by operation of law. 6 8. In the present case, the Petitioner has been removed from service, and therefore the statutory consequence under Rule 9(1) squarely applies. Once the Petitioner has been removed, any leave to his credit stands extinguished by virtue of the rule itself, and no entitlement survives for leave encashment or for restoration of such leave. In view of the clear legal position under the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 and the binding DoP&T instructions, the Petitioner cannot claim any relief in respect of leave encashment, nor can this Court issue any direction contrary to the express statutory mandate. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha