1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R BHANWAR LAL V. COMMISSIONER, COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT, IGNP AND OTHERS. S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.645/2008 Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. DATE OF ORDER 30/01/2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.D.K.Prihar, for Petitioner. BY THE COURT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar, whereby that Court has answered the reference made to it. A reference was made to the Labour Court by the appropriate Government to the effect whether the non-payment of the amount of leave encashement towards casual leave and Gazetted holidays in the sum of Rs.1,28,782/- to the petitioner by the Management was legally justified. The Labour Court, on consideration of the evidence, came to hold that in the disciplinary proceedings, penalty of stoppage of 10% 2 of the pension was imposed on the petitioner. One of the charges against the petitioner was that he absented from his duty and his defence was that he applied for medical leave for the period of the absence, but that was not granted. However, disciplinary authority directed that the period of absence be regularized by grant of extra-ordinary leave. The learned Labour Court, therefore, held that in view of Rule 57 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1958, the benefit of leave encasement could be granted to the petitioner, only if he had earned leave and that the leave could be earned by him while actually discharging the duties. Learned Labour Court, therefore, by referring to Rule 97 (4) of the said Rules, held that a Government servant on extra- ordinary leave is not entitled to any leave salary. The reference was accordingly answered. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material forming part of the record, I do not find that the award of the Labour Court suffers from any such legal infirmity that may be described as error apparent on the face of the record so as to warrant any interference by this Court. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. scd