Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Girija Shankar Dwivedi, son of late Pancham Dubey - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Ors. - Respondents
L.P.A. No.324 of 2021
Decided On : 02-05-2024
LEAVE ENCASHMENT - EMPLOYMENT LAW - SERVICE RULES - The court discussed the service rules applicable to leave encashment, which allowed a maximum of 240 days of leave encashment upon superannuation. The court interpreted the rules to conclude that the petitioner had already availed 90 days of leave, thus only being entitled to 160 days of encashment. The court emphasized the importance of the petitioner's own admission regarding his entitlement, which influenced the decision to dismiss the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired bank employee, claimed entitlement to an additional 100 days of leave encashment beyond the 160 days already received at the time of superannuation, arguing that his leave records were not properly updated. He contended that he was entitled to encash 240 days of leave as per the bank's service rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had already availed 90 days of leave encashment and had requested encashment for only 160 days at the time of retirement. The court upheld the calculation made by the bank and concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to any further benefits.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to additional leave encashment beyond the 160 days already received, considering the service rules and the leave availed during his tenure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner’s own request for encashment of 160 days indicated his acknowledgment of the leave balance, and since he had already availed 90 days of leave, he was not entitled to claim further encashment beyond what was already disbursed.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge that the petitioner was not entitled to any further leave encashment benefits.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 04.08.2021 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.193 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the writ petitioner seeking direction upon the respondents to disburse the leave encashment amount of 80 days more has been refused to be granted by dismissing the writ petition.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated, reads hereunder as :-
It is the case of the petitioner that he joined the Bank's service in clerical cadre as Clerk cum Cashier on 03.03.1986 and promoted to Officer's cadre on 13.03.2008 and from the date of joining i.e. 03.03.1986 till 30.11.2008 he was posted at Daltonganj Branch of the Respondent Bank. Thereafter he was transferred to Bikramganj Branch where he remained posted from 01.12.2008 to 18.07.2010 from Bikramganj Branch he was transferred to Dalmia Nagar Branch and he remained posted there from 19.07.2010 till 18.01.2013 and from Dalmia Nagar Branch he was transferred to Khairadih Branch where he remained posted from 14.01.2013 till 08.10.2014. From Khairadih Branch he was transferred to Ranchi Branch where he remained posted from 09.10.2014 till 07.05.2018 and from Ranchi Branch he was transferred to SMEC Ranchi from where he superannuated from service on 29.02.2020.
3. At the time of superannuation, the petitioner submitted an application dated 18.02.2020 to his controller i.e. Assistant General Manager, SMEC, Ranchi. In the application dated 18.02.2020, the petitioner applied to encash 160 days privilege leave standing to his credit at the time of superannuation. The application of the petitioner was processed and a sum of Rs. 5,82,564.00 was received by the petitioner towards encashment of leave.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that employee of the Respondent Bank is entitled to encash his available leave balance up to a maximum of 240 days at the time of superannuation as per applicable rules, therefore, seeking an intervention of this Court for a direction to the Respondent Bank to pay another 100 days leave encashment.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that he retired on 29.02.2020, as a Manager from SBI SMECC, Ranchi and when he was posted at Daltonganj, Branch from 03.03.1986 till July 2008, then his leave record has not been transferred H.R.M.S. and due to that the same has not been updated. The total leave encashment is around 100 days for which the payment has not been made till now.
6. The petitioner wrote several letters dated 22.05.2013, 25.05.2013, 03.07.2019 & 22.11.2019 including letter no. 2013 14/BR/279 when he was posted as Regional Manager at Sasaram to the staff supervising for anomaly in leave record. The petitioner finally gave a legal notice dated 28.10.2020 to the respondent No. 5 for which a reply dated 17.11.2020 has been received from the empanelled lawyer of the Bank. Thereafter, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.193 of 2021.
7. The respondents have appeared and filed counter affidavit vehemently opposing the claim of the petitioner in the writ petition stating that the relief claimed by the petitioner is of the nature of civil dispute and of the year 1986-2008 and the same is hopelessly barred by law of limitation and that there is no violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner, rather, as it appears from the petition, the relief and the dispute are of civil nature by and between the employer and employee.
8. The stand has also been taken that the claim made by the petitioner involves determination of disputed question of facts and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this score also. As per the service rules applicable to the petitioner, an officer of the Bank may encashment from time to time, he was left with a leave balance of 160 days only. Now, the claim o
An employee's claim for leave encashment must align with their own admissions and the applicable service rules, which dictate the maximum allowable encashment and account for any leave already taken.
Leave encashment - Beyond the period of superannuation no benefit of leave is available to a government employee.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of an employee to leave encashment benefits upon compulsory retirement, as per Regulation 38 and judicial interpretations, and the ....
Retired employees are entitled to leave encashment as a matter of legal right, and undue delays in payment due to pending inquiries are not justified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
