An employee removed from service retains the right to leave encashment, as such benefits constitute property under Article 300A, not forfeited by removal from service.

JUDGMENT :

Sujoy Paul, ACJ.

Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Shanthi Bhushan Rao, Sri Chandra Shekar and Sri Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC), for the appellants in W.A.Nos.69 of 2019, 138 of 2019, 862 of 2024 and 1122 of 2024; Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.862 of 2024 and for the sole respondent in W.A.No.1122 of 2024; and Sri P.Govinda Rajulu, learned counsel for the respondent in W.A.No.69 of 2019, for the respondent in W.A.No.138 of 2019 and for the appellant in W.A.No.781 of 2019.

2. W.A.Nos.69 of 2019, 138 of 2019, 862 of 2024 and 1122 of 2024 are filed by TSRTC (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the employer’) and W.A.No.781 of 2019 is filed by the employee.

3. The basic question which needs consideration is whether an employee, who is inflicted with the punishment of removal from service, is entitled to get the benefit of leave encashment.

4. The specific stand of the employer is that in view of Regulation 50(B) of The Employees (Leave) Regulations, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Regulations’), the removed employee is not entitled to get the benefit of leave encashment. In W.A.No.781 of 2019 filed by the removed employee, the singular grievance is that the learned Single Judge was kind enough in issuing a direction to grant the benefit of leave encashment, but did not grant him 6% interest, whereas the said benefit was granted in other connected matters like in the impugned order in W.A.No.69 of 2019.

5. Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel for the employer, by taking this Court to Regulation 50(B) of the Regulations, submits that this provision nowhere provides the benefit of leave encashment to an employee who suffered the punishment of removal from service. Although, a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in W.A.No.640 of 2007 considered the said Regulation 50(B) of the Regulations, it only opined that it does not contain any prohibition for encashment of leave in case of employees who were removed from service and therefore the said judgment cannot be pressed into service. He placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited v. Pyare Lal , 2014 SCC OnLine P&H 15012 : AIR 2014 P&H 147 and urged that the Full Bench revisited its previous judgment and opined that the leave encashment cannot be granted in cases of employees who were removed from service. Lastly, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of High Court of Jharkhand in Dr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand , 2019 SCC OnLine Jhar 3221.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the removed employees supported the order of the learned Single Judge, except in W.A.No.781 of 2019, wherein interest of 6% was not granted for belated payment of leave encashment, whereas such interest was granted to other similarly situated removed employees.

7. Parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above.

8. We have bestowed our anxious consideration on the rival contentions and perused the record.

9. This is an admitted fact that the removed employees approached the Court by filing writ petitions for grant of the benefit of leave encashment. The learned Single Judge has recorded the findings in one of the writ petitions i.e., W.P.No.24687 of 2014, dated 19.09.2018, as under:

“4. In view of the decision of Division