1 2026:CGHC:25968 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5065 of 2018 1 - Kundan Raj S/o Late Shri Shivnath Singh Raj Aged About 39 Years R/o House No. 10, D.P. Homes, Amlidih, Police Station-New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited Through Its Managing Director, Danganiya, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Engineer (Production) Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Korba (East), District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Engineer (Human Resources) Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Danganiya, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintending Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Korba (East) District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Ms. Srishti Singh, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, Advocate. For Respondent/s : Ms. Pragati Parak, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Raja Sharma, Advocate. NIRMALA RAO 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 24.6.2026 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders to the respondent authorities and the impugned order dated 09.02.18 (Annex. P-1) may kindly be set-aside and the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to immediately pay the leave encashment amount to the petitioner with interest, in the interest of justice. 10.2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, initially on 25.8.2005, the petitioner was working with respondent No.1 under Korba Thermal Power Station (KTPS) on the post of Junior Engineer and later on, promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 5.10.2010. She would contend that on 25.3.2015, Public Service Commission issued an advertisement for two posts of Boiler Inspector and according to Clause 7(1) of the said advertisement, if a candidate, at the time of applying for the post, was working with the State Government/ Corporation/ Board/ Undertaking, then, prior to making an application, he was required to make an application to his existing employer, requesting it to issue “No Objection Certificate” directly to the Public Service Commission. She would submit that the petitioner approached 3 respondent No.1 and No Objection Certificate was issued in his favour on 6.4.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner participated in the examination for the post of Boiler Inspector, was selected and joined the said post on 3.8.2016. Prior to the said date, the petitioner had tendered his resignation on 26.7.2016. She would argue that, in the said application, it was specifically stated that a No Objection Certificate has already been issued by respondent No.1. She would further submit that the application was moved through proper channel before the Competent Authority and three months salary was deposited. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the Competent Authority accepted the resignation tendered by the petitioner and thereafter, he joined service on the post of Boiler Inspector on 3.8.2016. She would contend that the petitioner moved an application for grant of leave encashment on 4.3.2017 and when no heed was paid, a reminder letter was sent on 17.10.2017. She would argue that respondent No.2 has rejected the application moved by the petitioner vide order dated 9.2.2018 applying the provisions of Rule 8 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010 (for short ‘Rules, 2010’). She would contend that the authority concerned misconstrued the provisions of Rule 8(2) of Rules, 2010 as the resignation was tendered through proper channel and the petitioner had applied for another post under the State Government but outside his parent office or department. She would pray to allow this petition. 4 3) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. She would submit that the petitioner had applied for another post in a different department and the application was not submitted through proper channel. Therefore, the petitioner has rightly been found ineligible for leave encashment according to provisions of Rule 8(2) of the Rules, 2010. It is also argued that since this is not a case of dismissal or removal from service, therefore, the provisions of Rule 8(2) of Rules, 2010, will not attract and therefore, his application was rightly rejected. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 5) Admittedly, the petitioner was working under respondent No.1 on the post of Assistant Engineer when an advertisement was issued by the Public Service Commission for the post of Boiler Inspector. According to Clause 7 of the advertisement, the candidates already in employment were required to submit a No Objection Certificate issued directly by the employer. The petitioner made an application before respondent No.1 seeking issuance of a No Objection Certificate, which was allowed and No Objection Certificate was directly sent to the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission by respondent No.2. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process and was selected. Thereafter, the petitioner tendered his resignation through the proper channel, wherein he categorically stated that he had deposited three 5 months salary with respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 accepted the resignation submitted by the petitioner on 17.10.2016 and on the same date, he was relieved from service. The petitioner joined as Boiler Inspector on 3.8.2016 and thereafter, moved an application seeking grant of leave encashment, as he had worked under the respondents for a period of 12 years. 6) A bare reading of Rule 8(2) of Rules, 2010 would make it clear that where a Government servant applies for another post under the State Government but outside his parent office or department and if such application is forwarded through proper channel and the applicant is required to resign his post before taking up the new one, such resignation shall not result in the lapse of the leave standing to his credit. The provisions of Rule 8 of Rules, 2010 would reveal that a government servant can claim leave encashment after dismissal or removal or resignation or tendering resignation from service. In the present case, the petitioner tendered his resignation from his earlier employment and joined services on the post of Boiler Inspector under the State Government, therefore, his application for leave encashment according to provisions of Section 8(2) of Rules, 2010 was maintainable and respondent No.2 misconstrued the provisions of the said Rule while rejecting the application. The petitioner had applied for a No Objection Certificate before respondent No.1 and thereafter, participated in the examination for the post of Boiler Inspector. Subsequently, upon his selection, he immediately 6 tendered his resignation through proper channel. The petitioner had also deposited three months salary with respondent No.1 and this fact has not been disputed by the respondents. 7) A bare reading of the provisions of Rule 8(2) of Rules, 2010 would make it clear that such resignation shall not result in the lapse of the leave standing to the credit of such Government servant. 8) Rule 8(2) of Rules, 2010 reads as under: “8(2) Where a Government servant applies for another post under the State Government but outside his parent office or department and if such application is forwarded through proper channel and the applicant is required to resign his post before taking up the new one, such resignation shall not result in the lapse of the leave to his credit.” 9) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the provisions of Rule 8 particularly Rule 8(2) of Rules, 2010, in my opinion, the order dateds 9.2.2018 passed by respondent No.2 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed. Consequences to follow. 10) Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi