JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“(a) For issuance of appropriate writs/orders or directions particularly a writ in nature of Certiorari for quashing the letter no. GE-3-Vet-Misc.VII-1-353 dated 19.09.2012 issued by the office of Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi (respondent no. 3) by which the payable amount on account of leave encashment for 240 days (as mentioned in the letter no. GE-3-Vet-Misc.VII-17-511 dated 26.12.2011) has been rejected on account of his dismissal from service.

(b) For issuance of appropriate writs/orders or directions upon the respondent no. 1 (The Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Jharkhand) and to call upon the letter no. 3-pen-(2)15/2012 P. Pa./556 dated 10.05.2012 said to be issued in the name of the petitioner and quash the same as the same is highly illegal and arbitrary in view of the judgment rendered by the full Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey in L.P.A. No. 714/2004 and consequent thereto to pay the admitted amount of leave encashment of 240 days to the petitioner along with interest till the date of final payment made to the petitioner.

(c) For issuance of appropriate writs/orders/or directions particularly a writ in nature of Mandamus directing upon the respondents to the pay the left over amount of General Provident Fund with statutory interest till the date the same is paid to the petitioner.

(d) For any order/orders, direction/directions as your Lordships may deem fit and proper as in the fact and circumstance of the case.”

Arguments of the petitioner

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in the present case has two grievances; the first one is in relation to non-payment of leave encashment even for the period for which the petitioner had worked. The second one is in connection with part payment of the contribution of G.P.F. from the side of the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been dismissed from service on 02.01.2008. The authority slip for payment of G.P.F. so far as contribution of the petitioner is concerned, was issued on 07.01.2013. The petitioner had represented before the appropriate authority that in the authority slip, the last place of posting was wrongly mentioned as Jamtara, it ought to have been Hotwar. The learned counsel has further submitted that the leave encashment was sanctioned to the petitioner by the office of Accountant General vide Annexure-3 dated 26.12.2011. However, by the impugned order as contained in Annexure-9 dated 19.09.2012, the petitioner has been denied leave encashment on the ground that a dismissed employee is not entitled for leave encashment.

5. The learned counsel submits that the right of the petitioner to have leave encashment cannot be denied in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey vs. State of Jharkhand, 2007 (4) JCR 1 (FB). The learned counsel has further submitted that there is no statutory rule or law enabling withholding leave encashment. The learned counsel has submitted that in the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court, a circular issued by the State Government of the year 1993 was set-aside which made provision for withholding of leave encashment. The learned counsel has also submitted that while answering the reference, the Hon’ble Full Bench clearly held that under Rule 43(a) and 43(b) of Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules, there is no power for the Government to withhold Gratuity and Pension during the pendency of the departmental proceeding or criminal proceeding. It has also been held that it does not give any power to withhold leave encashment at any stage either prior to the proceedings or after the proceedings. The learned counsel submits that in substance, even if, a person is held guilty in the departmental proceedings or convicted