Dismissed employees convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are not entitled to leave encashment as per the relevant rules and instructions.

JUDGMENT :

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of certiorari for quashing of order dated 29.05.2019 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No. 2-Director, Local Bodies, Punjab whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of leave encashment has been rejected on the ground that dismissed employee is not entitled for leave encashment.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner was working as J.D., B&R in the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar when he was booked in case FIR No. 17 dated 01.04.1999 for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was thereafter convicted under the above sections and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 04 years vide judgment dated 07.03.2002. The said judgment was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing appeal bearing No. CRA-S-453-SB-2002 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 20.05.2015 by upholding the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Even the Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6767 of 2015 filed by the petitioner against the abovesaid judgment has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 28.08.2015.

3. Keeping in view the conviction of the petitioner, he was dismissed from service by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 19.08.2015 and it is the case of the petitioner that he is behind the bars since 10.08.2015, when he surrendered in compliance to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thereafter he was released on interim bail on 15.12.2017 in compliance to the order dated 04.12.2017 passed by this Court.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that he approached the respondents for releasing his leave encashment which was not paid from 1981 to 19.08.2015 and since no action was taken by the respondents, therefore, he served a legal notice dated 18.03.2019 and vide impugned order dated 29.05.2019, it has been informed to the petitioner that he is not entitled for leave encashment as the same is not applicable to the employees who has been removed/dismissed from service.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of judgment passed by this Court in Dhir Chand vs. State of Haryana, 2019 (1) SCT 134, the petitioner is entitled for leave encashment and therefore, the action of the respondents in rejecting his claim vide impugned order dated 29.05.2019 is totally illegal and arbitrary and is against the law laid down by this Court in the abovesaid judgment.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the judgment passed in Dhir Chand's case (supra), on which the reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner, has already been distinguished by the another Coordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment rendered in Ram Kumar Ranga vs. State of Haryana and Others, 2019 (4) SCT 99 and in the said judgment the relevant provisions of the rules and instructions have been extensively considered and it has been held that an employee who has been dismissed from the service is not entitled for leave encashment.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents.

8. No doubt, the learned Single Bench of this Court in Dhir Chand's case (supra) has held that the dismissed employee is entitled for leave encashment, however, the said judgment has been considered by another Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ram Kumar Ranga's case (supra) and it has been held that the relevant provisions of Rules and the latest instructions were not brought to the notice of the Court at the time of deciding Dhir Chand's case (supra). The relevant portion from the judgment passed in Ram Kumar Ranga's case (supra) is as under:

“47. Therefore, Coordinate Bench while deciding Dhir Chand's case (supra) was not informed about the order passed in review petition