JUDGMENT :

M.I. ARUN, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 03.11.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 12961 of 2015 in allowing the writ petition and setting aside the impugned order, the respondent therein has filed this appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein was removed from service by the appellant. A dispute was raised and it was held that his removal is illegal and void-ab-initio. As a consequence, the appellant was directed to reinstate the respondent into service with full back wages and consequential benefits. The same was confirmed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No. 11437 of 2007 and writ appeal No. 1897 of 2011. However, the back wages were reduced to 60% only on the ground that there would be excessive financial burden on the appellant and not because any allegations were proved against the respondent.

3. Pursuant to the orders referred above, the back wages and certain consequential benefits have been paid to the respondent herein. However, the appellant did not permit the respondent to encash 240 days of earned leave. Hence, the respondent filed an application before Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Lab