Denial of leave encashment to a dismissed employee is justifiable and not discriminatory.

1. Quashing of Regulation 38 of Canara Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979 is sought by petitioner on the ground that it contravenes Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. A mandamus is sought by petitioner to respondents to release leave encashment benefit to petitioner. It is matter of record that petitioner was departmentally proceeded against and consequent upon a departmental inquiry, penalty of dismissal from service was inflicted upon petitioner in the year 2009 and there is no challenge to the penalty inflicted upon petitioner. What is sought in this petitioner is the encashment of leave of 240 days.

2. Petitioner’s counsel relies upon Rule 39 of Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1972 to submit that the leave encashment cannot be curtailed even in a case of dismissal, as it is a deferred salary and the leave encashment can be only curtailed if some amount is recoverable from an employee, who has been dismissed from service. Reliance is placed upon decisions in Canara Bank & Ors. Vs. Ranvir Singh 2011 (4) SCT 21; T. Veeravinothan Vs. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kilpauk, Chennai & Ors. 2016(1) LLJ 730 and Ashwani Kumar Sharma Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce 103(2003) DLT 738 (DB) in support of above submission.

3. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent maintains that the Regulation 38 of Canara Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979 is based on sound logic and principle and it cannot be negated by reference to Rule 39 of Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1972 as the aforesaid Rule is not in conflict with the Regulation in question. While submitting that the decisions relied upon by petitioner’s counsel have no application to the instant case, dismissal of this petition is sought by counsel for respondents.

4. Upon hearing and on perusing material on record and the decisions cited, I find that Regulation 38 of Canara Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979 needs to be looked into. It reads as under:-

“38. LAPSE OF LEAVE

Save as provided below, all leave to the credit of an Officer shall lapse on resignation, retirement, death, discharge, dismissal or termination for any reason.

Provided that where an Officer retires from the services of the Bank, he shall be eligible to be paid a sum equivalent to the emoluments of any period, not exceeding 240 days of privilege leave that he had accumulated.

Provided further that where an Officer dies while in service, there shall be payable to his legal representative, a sum equivalent to the emoluments for the period not exceeding 240 days of privilege leave to his credit as on the date of his death.

Provided also that where an Officer leaves or discontinues his services by resignation on or after the 1st April, 2001 after giving due notice under Sub Regulation (2) of Regulation 20, he may be paid a sum equivalent to the emoluments in respect of privilege leave to the extent of half of such leave to his credit on the date of cessation of service, subject to a maximum of 120 days.”

5. Rule 39 of Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1972 is reproduced as under:-

“39. Leave/Cash payment in lieu of leave beyond the date of retirement, compulsory retirement or quitting of service:

(1) No leave shall be granted to a Government servant beyond-

(a) the date of his retirement, or

(b) the date of his final cessation of duties, or

(c) the date on which he retires by giving notice to Government or he is retired by Government by giving him notice or pay and allowances in lieu of such notice, in accordance with the terms and conditions of his service, or

(d) the date of his resignation from service.

(2) (a) Where a Government servant retires on attaining the normal age prescribed for retirement under the terms and conditions governing his service, the authority competent to grant leave shall suo motu, issue an order granting cash equivalent of leave s