The quantum of leave encashment to be allowed to an employee is a policy decision of the concerned employer and will be governed by the relevant Government Orders.

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:

1. The petitioner has assailed an Order dated June 21, 2016 by which the claim of the petitioner for 300 days Earned Leave has been negated.

2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner has retired from service under the university as an Assistant Registrar on February 29, 2012. The petitioner has received his retirement benefits. However, the petitioner has grievance with regard to the leave salary. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, by the Order dated June 23, 2000 the higher education department has prescribed that cash equivalent to leave salary for Earned Leave if any, to the credit of the employee on the date of retirement will apply uniformly for all officers or non-teaching employees of State Aided universities. Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya is one of the universities to be governed by such government order. He has submitted that, the leave Rules appended to the Government Order dated June 23, 2000 permits encashment of 300 days of leave salary. He has further submitted that the universities named in the Government Order dated June 23, 2000 have implemented such Government Order and that, the employees Governed by such Government Orders of the universities are named therein are enjoying the benefit of 300 days Earned Leave salary. Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya is wrongly not allowing encashment of 300 days leave salary. He has relied upon 2005 (10) SCC 346 (State of Rajasthan v. Senior Higher Secondary School) and has submitted that, encashment of leave salary is a part of salary receivable by the employee.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has referred to the impugned order passed by the Additional Chief Secretary of the Agriculture Department dated June 21, 2016 and has submitted that, the claim for leave salary for 300 days has been rejected without any basis. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that, the impugned order is correct. He has referred to the impugned Order dated June 21, 2016 and has submitted that, the request for encashment of 300 days leave salary has been correctly negated on the basis of the Government Order dated November 1, 2001 issued by the Higher Education Department and the Government Order dated December 14/18, 2001.

4. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.

5. The petitioner was a whole time non-teaching employee of Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya. He had retired from service on November 29, 2012. Subsequent to his retirement a pension order was issued which, inter alia, demonstrates that, the petitioner was entitled to 240 days leave salary. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to 300 days leave salary. Being aggrieved by the pension order he had filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 22363 (W) of 2014. Such writ petition was disposed of by an Order dated January 28, 2015 modified by the Order dated March 3, 2015. By such order the petitioner was granted liberty to submit a representation to the Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department. The authority was directed to consider such representation in accordance with law. The petitioner had filed a representation dated March 12, 2015 claiming 300 days leave salary. Since such representation was not disposed of, the petitioner had filed a second writ petition being W.P. No. 8145 (W) of 2016. The second writ petition was disposed of on May 17, 2016 directing the authority concerned to dispose of the representation in terms of the earlier order of the Court. The authority had considered the representation and passed an Order dated June 21, 2016 which is impugned in the present writ petition. The authority had negated the claim for 300 days leave salary on the premise of a conjoined reading of Government Orders dated November 1, 2001 and December 14/18, 2001 a whole time non-teaching employee such as the petitioner is entitled to 240 days leave salary and not 30

Click Here to Read the rest of this document