1 2026:CGHC:25668 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 953 of 2016 Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board, Through Its Executive Engineer, Testing Division, Bijli Nagar, M.P.E.B. Colony, Bhilai- I I I, District Durg M.P. Now Chhattis- garh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - M. S. Rizvi House No. E/22, Near Ganesh Pandal, Bijli Nagar, M.P.E.B. Colony, Bhilai- I I I Distgrict Durg M.P. Now Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Industrial Court, Bench- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Labour Court, Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Adv. For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board 23-6-2026 1. This case has been listed today for hearing on I.A. No. 2/2018 filed by the applicant for bringing on record Smt. Wakila, LR of respondent No. 1 and I.A. No. 3/2021 for bringing S. Mozaffer, LR 2 of respondent No. 1 on record. Vide aforesaid applications, the applicant seeks permission to implead LRs of the deceased respondent No. 1 Mohd. S. Rizvi. 2. Original writ petition bearing WP No. 3033/94 was filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. After formation of State of CG and establishment of High Court of CG, that writ petition has been transferred from the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to this High Court. The same was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 13-2-2013. 3. Instant MCC has been filed for recall of the order dated 13-2-2013 and for restoration of WP No. 3033/1994. This MCC itself has been filed with a delay of 1377 days, as pointed by the Registry. The applicant has also filed I.A. No. 1/2016 for condonation of delay in filing the MCC. 4. So far as the issue involved in the original writ petition is concerned, the Labour Court, Durg vide order (Annexure H) passed in Case No. 220/MPIR/87 directed the non-applicant therein to grant monetary benefits of leave to the employee/respondent No. 1 herein. The above order has been upheld by the Industrial Court, Raipur vide order dated 22-1-1994 (Annexure I) passed in Appeal No. 408/MPIR Act/91. Taking into consideration limited relief granted to the employee, who has died on 18-2-2013, as informed by learned counsel for the applicant, without considering the I.A. No. 2/2018 and I.A. No. 3/2021, the 3 case is taken up for hearing. 5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 6. The Industrial Court dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant herein vide order dated 22-1-1994 observing therein in para 6 and 7 as under :- “6. अभिलेख के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है किक प्रति अपीलार्थी कर्मचारी को 1-4-87 से अतिरिरक्त अवकाश का ला प्रदान किकया है, यह ला उसे किकसी किवशेष छू ट के आधार पर किदया गया हो अभिलेख से स्पष्ट नहीं है क्योंकिक इस संबंध र्में न ो कोई आदेश प्रस्ु किकया है और न ही कोई साक्ष्य प्रस्ु की गयी है। प्रति अपीलार्थी कर्मचारी ने अपने कर्थीन र्मैं उसके जैसे सी सुपरवाईजस् को जनरल सर्विवस रेग्युलेशन के अनुसार अवकाश का ला र्थीा र्म० प्र० शासन के सार्मान्य अवकाश का ला किदये जाने का उल्लेख किकया है जिजसका खंडन ी अपीलार्थी किनयोक्ता की ओर से नहीं है। ऐसी स्थिस्र्थीति र्में अधीनस्र्थी न्यायालय द्वारा किनकाले गये किनष्कष, किक प्रति अपीलार्थी कर्मचारी जनरल सर्विवस रेग्युलेशन के अनुसार अवकाश ला प्राप्त करने का अतिधकारी है अनुतिच नहीं ठहराया जा सका । जहाँ एक प्रकरण के किवलम्ब से प्रस्ु किकये जाने का प्रश्न है अधीनस्र्थी न्यायालय द्वारा प्रति अपीलार्थी कर्मचारी को अधीनस्र्थी न्यायालय के सर्मक्ष प्रकरण प्रस्ु करने के किदनांक से जनरल सर्विवस रेग्युलेशन के आधार पर अवकाश ला र्थीा र्म० प्र० शासन द्वारा पोकिष अवकाश प्रदान करने के किनदOश ही अपीलार्थी किनयोक्ता को किदये गए हैं। ऐसी स्थिस्र्थीति र्में अपीलार्थी किनयोक्ता की ओर से प्रति अपीलार्थी को 4 अवतिध बातिध सहाया किदलाये जाने की आपत्तिQ स्वीकार किकये जाने योग्य नहीं है। 7. उपरोक्त किववेचन के आधार पर अपीलार्थी किनयोक्ता की ओर से प्रस्ु अपील स्वीकार किकये जाने योग्य न होने से किनरस् की जाी है। उयपक्ष अपना-अपना व्यय वहन करें। अपील क्रर्मांक से कर्म हो । अधीनस्र्थी न्यायालय का अभिलेख वाकिपस ेजा जावे ।" 7. Since alleged monetary benefits against leave were granted to the original respondent/employee, who has now died, therefore, even if it is held that he was not entitled to get said monetary benefits, despite that, on account of his death, same is not recoverable. Therefore, having considered the observation made by learned Industrial Court and changed circumstances, as the respondent has died, in the opinion of this Court, no fruitful purpose would be served to keep this petition pending. The MCC is also hopelessly barred by 1377 days, which has not satisfactorily been explained. 8. Hence, in view of above, MCC is dismissed. 9. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge pathak AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.06.29 10:52:56 +0530