Point of Law : Incident of retirement, either voluntary or on superannuation, is a sine qua non for claiming the benefit of earned leave as per the above norms.

JUDGMENT :

C. Jayachandran, J.

The respondents in W.P.(C) No.10980/2010 (the National Insurance Company and its officials) are the appellants herein. The instant writ appeal is preferred challenging the judgment dated 2.3.2023 of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition afore-referred, which directed the respondents therein to pay the leave encashment due to the petitioner therein, together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

2. The essential facts are as follows:-

The parties are referred to in their original status in the writ petition. The petitioner resigned from the 1st respondent National Insurance Company Ltd. after 21 years of service. Although he was informed that he would be entitled for the benefit of earned leave encashment, the same was not disbursed to him. Exts.P4 and P5 representations dated 18.8.2007 and 30.10.2007 seeking encashment of the earned leave evoked no response from the respondents. The same was the fate of Ext.P6 reminder. Consequently, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.17699/2009 before this Court, which was disposed of vide Ext.P7 judgment dated 20.7.2009, directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on the afore-referred representations of the petitioner. Although the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing, he could not appear for personal hearing, instead of which, he forwarded Ext.P8 detailed representation dated 25.9.2009. However, by Ext.P9 order dated 30.11.2009, the petitioner's representation was rejected, on the premise that the petitioner, having chosen to resign from service, is not entitled to the benefit and that the same is available only for persons who have retired from service.

3. The 2nd respondent filed a statement contending that the service conditions of the employees of the respondent/company are governed by the General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and other Service Conditions of Officers) Scheme, 1975 and General Insurance (Termination, Superannuation and Retirement of Officers and Development Staff) Scheme, 1976, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-R2(A). In the year 1993, The Government of India framed General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme. Accordingly, options were invited from all employees indicating their preference to be governed by the Pension Scheme, 1995 or by virtue of the pre-existing Annexure-R2(A) Scheme, 1976. The petitioner, having read and understood the Pension Scheme, 1995, opted not to be governed by the Scheme and expressed his choice to continue to be governed by Annexure-R2(A) Scheme of the year 1976. Annexure-R2(B) is the option form submitted by the petitioner. As per Annexure-R2(C) letter, the petitioner resigned from the service of the respondent/company in the year 2007. The petitioner had also not attained the age of 55 years at the time of tendering Annexure-R2(C) resignation letter. A voluntary retirement upon completion of 20 years of service was applicable only to those employees who opted to be governed by the Pension Scheme of the year 1995. As per Clause 4(5)(a) of Annexure-R2(A) scheme, only those officers, who retire from the company on attaining the age of superannuation or those who take voluntary retirement under the Scheme, alone are eligible for earned leave encashment, wherefore, the petitioner is not eligible for the said benefit. On such premise, the respondents sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. The learned Single Judge took note of the legal position that leave encashment is part of the salary and held that the petitioner, who had submitted a resignation by complying with clause no.5 of Annexure-R2(A) Scheme, is entitled to leave encashment as per clause no.4(5) of the Scheme. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, directing the respondents to encash the earned leave.

5. Heard Sri. Thampan Thomas, learned counsel on behalf of the appellants and Sri. E.K. Nandakumar, learned Senior Coun