SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(P&H) 991

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J.
Balwinder Singh And Another - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab And Others - Respondent
CWP-13518 of 2018
Decided On : 24-02-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellants; Ms. Anju Arora, Addl.AG, Punjab. for the Respondent

Dismissed employees are not entitled to leave encashment as per the relevant rules and case laws.

Headnote:

Leave Encashment - Dismissed Employee - Prevention of Corruption Act, Indian Penal Code - Rule 8.21 - The judgment discusses the claim of leave encashment by dismissed employees under Rule 8.21 and cites relevant rules and case laws to establish that dismissed employees are not entitled to leave encashment. The court emphasizes that the rules governing leave encashment do not grant the benefit to dismissed employees and highlights the forfeiture of past service for dismissed employees under Rule 3.17-A(1)(ix). The court also refers to previous judgments to support its decision.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought leave encashment after being dismissed from service due to their involvement in a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code. The respondents argued that as per the law, dismissed employees are not entitled to leave encashment.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the rules governing leave encashment do not grant the benefit to dismissed employees and emphasized the forfeiture of past service for dismissed employees under Rule 3.17-A(1)(ix). The court also referred to previous judgments to support its decision.

Issues: The main issue was whether dismissed employees are entitled to leave encashment under the relevant rules and case laws.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that dismissed employees are not entitled to leave encashment as per the relevant rules and case laws, emphasizing the specific provisions that exclude dismissed employees from such benefits.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition based on the law laid down in previous judgments and the specific provisions of the rules governing leave encashment.

JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. - In the present writ petition, the claim of the petitioners is for grant of leave encashment, though, the services of the petitioners were terminated by the respondent-State after the petitioners were found guilty in FIR No.37 dated 08.06.1996 under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act as well as Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents states that keeping in view of the law laid down by this Court in CWP No.20751 of 2019 titled as Gurdeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 28.08.2019, the employees are only entitled for grant of leave encashment upon retirement and, therefore, the law is against the claim of the petitioners as raised in the present writ petition. Relevant paragraph of the judgement is as under:-

    "In order to appreciate the claim of the petitioner, who is a dismissed employee, for grant of leave encashment, the Rules governing the service in this regard are necessary to be noticed. The claim for the benefit of encashing the earned leave can be made by the petitioner only in case the Rules governing the service allow for the same. The relevant rule, which governs the service in respect of leave encashment is Rule 8.21. The same is reproduced herein for the ready reference:

    "5.27. (a) Leave at the credit of a Government employee in his leave account shall lapse on the date of his retirement:

    Provided that the Government employee, -

    (A) retiring on superannuation; or

    (B) retiring prematurely, voluntarily or on invalidation; or

    (C) retiring compulsorily as a measure of punishment and in whose case cut in the amount of pension has not been ordered by the competent authority; shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (c), be entitled to cash payment in lieu of the un-utilised earned leave due as leave preparatory to retirement as under :-

    (i) the cash payment shall be equivalent to leave salary limited to a maximum of 300 days " earned leave;

    (ii) the cash payment shall become payable on retirement in the above cases in lump sum as a one-time settlement;

    (iii) the leave salary for the purpose of this rule shall not include city compensatory allowance or house-rent allowance;

    and

    (iv) no deduction on account of pension and pensionary benefit equivalent to other retirement benefits shall be made from the cash thus paid.

    (aa) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (a), the authority competent to grant leave may withhold whole or part of cash equivalent of earned leave in the case of Government employee, who retires from service on superannuation while under suspension or while disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending against him, if in the opinion of such authority, there is a possibility of some money becoming recoverable from him on conclusion of the proceedings against him and on conclusion of the proceedings, he shall become eligible to the amount so withheld after adjustment of Government dues, if any.

    (b) In case of a Government employee, who is granted extension in Service, on the completion of his extended period of Service, shall be entitled to draw cash equivalent to un-utilized earned leave at his credit on the date of his superannuation:

    Provided that a Government employee, who continues in Service after his superannuation, shall earn leave at the rate applicable to him on the date of his superannuation:

    Provided further that if a Government employee, avails earned leave in excess 119 [Chap. VIII] LEAVE [8.21-8.22] of leave earned by him during the period of his extension, in that case the excess leave availed by him, shall be deducted from the un-utilized leave at his credit on the date of his superannuation.

    (c) the cash payment for the unutilised leave admissible under the aforesaid sub-rule (a), shall be calculated as follows, namely: -

    Pay admissible on the date Number of days of unutilised of retirement plus earned leave at credit on the date Dearness Allowance of retirement subject to a maximum admissible on

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top