1 2026:CGHC:7739-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 137 of 2026 1 - Amir Khan S/o Late Shri Abbas Khan Aged About 67 Years Resident of Rajiv Gandhi Chauk, Gopal Marg No. 10, Majhawapara, Jarha Bhata, Bilaspur , District -Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Petitioner in Writ Petition) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Forest Department , Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin 492002. (Respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition ) 2 - The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Department Chhattisgarh Aranya Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh, Raipur Pin 492002., Respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition ) 3 - The Chief Conservator of Forest Circle Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Sindhi Colony Gate, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur 495 001 (Respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition ) 4 - The Divisional Forest Officer Kosabadi, Korba Forest Division And District -Korba Chhattisgarh Pin 495677 (Respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate. For State Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.02.13 20:24:59 +0530 2 Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12.02.2026 1. Heard on I.A. No.01 of 2026, application for condonation of delay in filing the writ appeal. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No.01 of 2026 is allowed and delay of 03 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. Challenge in the present writ appeal is the order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.1354 of 2021 and the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Review Petition No.385 of 2025 whereby the writ petition filed by the writ appellant was dismissed and the review petition filed by the writ appellant was disposed of with recalling of the observation made in the order passed in WPS No.1354 of 2021 with regard to application of Rules 1977. 4. The subject matter in brief is that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Forester vide order dated 05.05.1977. He got retired on superannuation on 30.06.2018. The petitioner was granted leave encashment of 240 days, however, he claimed that he is entitled for leave encashment for 300 days as per the rule 25 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 (in short’ the Rules, 1977’), which is challenged in the writ petition. The said writ petition was came up for hearing on 24.07.2025 before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the 3 petitioner is entitled to get leave encashment for a maximum period of 240 days only and the Rules, 1977 is applicable to the petitioner. The petitioner was earlier challenged the order dated 24.07.2025 by filing a Writ Appeal No.660 of 2025 before the coordinate Bench of this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn on 09.09.2025 with liberty to take recourse before the learned Single Judge, thereafter the writ appellant approached before the learned Single Judge by filing the Review Petition No.385 of 2025. The said review petition is disposed of vide order dated 26.11.2025 by recalling the observation made in the order with regard to application of the Rules, 1997. Hence, the writ appellant has challenged both the orders, i.e., order dated 24.07.2025 passed in WPS No.1354 of 2021 and dated 26.11.2025 passed in Review Petition No.385 of 2025. 5. Learned counsel for the writ appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge has erred in not considering the Rules of 2010 which is prevailing at the time when the writ appellant was retired. As per the prevailing Rules of 2010 the petitioner is entitled for leave encashment of 300 days, whereas, the learned Single Judge has held him entitled only for 240 days and there is no justification for not granting the leave encashment for entire 300 days. Although in the Rules, 1977 the petitioner was entitled for leave encashment for 240 days, but the said rules was repealed and new Rules of 2010 was introduced in which the leave encashment would be granted to the employees for a maximum period of 300 days. He would also submit that the review petition filed by the writ petitioner has also been 4 disposed of without considering the Rules of 2010 and therefore, the writ appeal may be allowed and the petitioner may be held entitled for leave encashment for 300 days instead of 240 days. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent/State supported the impugned order and opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the writ appellant. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the writ appeal as well as the writ petition and gone through the pleadings of the parties. 8. From perusal of the order impugned it transpires that the learned Single Judge has considered the Rules, 1977 which was prevailing at the time when the petitioner came into service and as per rule 25 of the Rules,1977 the petitioner was entitled for leave encashment for a maximum period of 240 days. In the year 2010 the new rules have been introduced in which the entitlement of the employees for leave encashment was extended upto maximum period of 300 days and the learned Single Judge has considered that in the Rules of 2010 it is nowhere stated that it will be applied to a Government servant appointed prior to this date, i.e., at the time when the new Rules of 2010 came into force. The learned Single Judge further considered the circular dated 12.05.2014 issued by the Finance Department in which the permissible limit of leave encashment is mentioned as 240 days. It further transpires that in the review petition the applicability of the Rules, 1977 was diluted by the learned Single Judge by recalling that observation in the order dated 24.07.2025, however, the review petition 5 was disposed of without modifying the period of leave encashment for which the petitioner is entitled. 9. From perusal of the circular dated 12.05.2014 issued by the Finance Department, Chhattisgarh Government it further transpires that the employees would be entitled for leave encashment for a maximum period of 240 days, though there are certain procedure of calculation made in para 4 of the circular, but the learned Single Judge has already considered the grounds taken by the writ appellant/petitioner in the writ petition as well as review petition. 10. Upon perusing the impugned orders, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. We do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge and we are of considered view that there is no fault in the impugned orders. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil