Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1692
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, A
Raghubir Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.874/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sh. H.S. Sandhu
For the Respondents: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC
Leave encashment is a property right under Article 300A of the Constitution, and cannot be withheld without justifiable reasons or evidence of recoverable dues.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 - Leave encashment - Applicant sought release of payment for 300 days of accumulated leave salary and interest for delayed payment - Respondents withheld payment citing pending disciplinary proceedings - Court ruled that leave encashment is a property right under Article 300A of the Constitution and cannot be withheld without a justifiable reason - Court emphasized that no quantifiable loss was attributed to the applicant, thus allowing the application. (Paras 1, 10, 14, 16)
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - The authority may withhold leave encashment only if there is a possibility of recoverable dues from the employee, which must be substantiated. (Paras 3, 9)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, a retired Executive Engineer, sought payment for accrued leave salary, which was withheld by the respondents due to pending disciplinary proceedings. The applicant argued that the payment should be released as per established legal precedents.
Findings of Court:
The court found merit in the applicant's claim, ruling that the withheld leave encashment must be released within eight weeks, without interest for delayed payment.
Issues: The key issue was whether the respondents could withhold leave encashment due to pending disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that leave encashment is a property right and cannot be withheld without a valid justification or quantifiable loss attributed to the applicant.
Result: Application allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the applicant's service and claims. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondents' arguments on withholding leave encashment. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis of legal precedents and rules. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. leave encashment is property under article 300a. (Para 13) |
| 5. order to release withheld leave encashment. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
ORDER (ORAL)
PER: MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
1. Present original application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking following relief:-
(i) Direct the Respondents to release payment of leave salary on account of leave encashment for 300 days accumulated by the applicant during service.
(ii) Direct the Respondents to grant interest @ 12% until the said amount on account of leave encashment is paid/credited to the Applicants’ Pension Account.
2. Brief facts of the case, as pleaded by the applicant, are that applicant was appointed as Superintendent Building & Roads Grade II in Military Engineer Services and later post was re- designated as Junior Engineer (Civil) vide MOD letter dated 09.07.1999. He was promoted as Assistant Engineer (Civil) on 25.07.2003 and to the grade of Executive Engineer and with effect from 28.05.2019. The applicant superannuated from service in the grade of Executive Engineer on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2022 after rendering 34 years 09 months spotless service and he has been granted Service Pension with effect from 01.01.2023. He was issued with Memorandum of Charges dated 19.12.2022 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules 1965 by Ministry of Defence on the day of retirement in violation of existing rules, for the event which took 17 years ago, alleging failure to supervise the execution of work under job No W-1658 as per specifications which amounts to misconduct and lack of devotion of duty. The impugned Charge Sheet dated 19.12.2022 was challenged by the applicant by filling OA No.173/2023 before this Tribunal. The Leave Encashment Certificate for 300 days EL and 499 days HPL was issued by Central Record Office Delhi Cantt. vide letter dated 23.02.2023 with directions to Chief Engineer Western Command for payment to the officer. Despite issuance of direction by CRO Delhi the respondent No.3 did not release payment on account of leave salary and applicant submitted Legal Notice to respondents to release leave salary for 300 days through his counsel. HQ Chief Engineer in reply to Legal notice intimated that applicant has been issued with Charge Sheet and under Rule 39(3) of CCS (Leave) Rule 1972, under which the competent to grant leave may withhold cash equivalent of earned leave, in the case of Govt Employee retires on attaining the age of superannuation and criminal/ disciplinary proceedings are pending against such employee. The case has been taken up with CE South Western Command for clarification. Applicant submitted another representation to respondents to release the leave salary with 12% interest for delayed payment. The respondents instead of releasing the payment on account of leave salary for 300 days have intimated that the directive from Engineer- in-Chief is awaited. The case of the applicant is squarely covered by the judgement of Full Bench of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 09.11.2012 in LPA No 113(O&M) Titled Punjab State Civil Supplies Corp Ltd Vs. Pyare Lal vide which it has been held that amount of leave encashment is payable to the retiring employee notwithstanding the pendency of departmental enquiry or criminal proceedings and also order dated 19.01.2016 of this Tribunal in OA No 112/2015 Titled Krishan Swarup Sharma Vs. UOI. Hence this OA
3. The respondents have filed reply submitting therein that DOPT’s instruction on timely payment of leave encashment vide letter dated 21.10.2013 is regarding unacceptable delays in payment of leave encashment to Government servant retiring on attaining the age of superannuation du
