Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi Order reserved on: 07.11.2025 Order pronounced on: 15.12.2025 Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)

1. Kuldeep Singh (Ex. SI, 59 years, Gp ‘C’)

S/o Late Sh. Budha Singh, R/o Shanti Nagar, Indra Puri, Loni, Distt. Ghaziabad, U.P-201102.

2. Ramesh Chand (Ex. CT, 55 years, Gp.C), S/o Sh. Sehdev Singh, R/o Vill. Dungar, PO Sunna, PS Fugna, Distt. Muzaffar Nagar, U.P.-247776.

3. Suahil Kumar, Ex.CT (aged 60 years, Gp.C), S/o Sh. Raghubir Singh R/o C-72/A, Mohan Puri, Maujpur, P.O. Seelam Pur, P.S. Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053.

4. Avnesh Kumar, Ex. CT, (Aged 55 years, Gp.C), Vill & PO Sarul Pur Kalan, P.S. Baghpat, Distt. Meerut, U.P-250609.

....Applicants (By Advocate: Mr. B.S.Jarial)

Versus

1. Commissioner of Police, Delhi, PHQ, Jai singh Road, New Delhi-01.

2. Deputy Commissioner of Police, 5th Bn/DAP, New Barrack No.4, NPL, Kingway Camp, Delhi-110009.

3. Assist. Controller of Accounts, PAO, DP-1, Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi-01.

4. The Secretary, DOP&T, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi-110001.

... Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. Ram Kanwar Dhillon)

ORDER By Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)

The present OA has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:

“i. To set aside Rule 9 (1) of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 and declare the same as ultra virus being in contravention to the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional one;

and ii. Direct the respondents to release leave encashment of the applicants immediately; and iii. To initiate Contempt Proceedings against Respondent No.3/Assist. Controller of Accounts for not complying with the law as declared in the case of Ct. Anil Kumar (supra) and which has already attained finality;

and iv. Direct the respondents to pay compound interest at the rate of 18% PA on the delay payment of leave encashment from the due date, when the employer-

employee relationship snaps.

v. To pass any such order or orders as my be deemed fit and proper by the Hon’ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the Competent Authority has unjustifiably invoked Rule 9(1) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 to deny the release of leave encashment to the applicant. The learned counsel for applicants states that he is not pressing the relief mentioned in Paragraph 8 (i) of the OA, and shall confine his submissions to the remaining reliefs in the said paragraph. As the applicants are not challenging the Rule 9(1) of the said Rules, the matter can be heard by the Single Bench. There is no objection from the learned counsel for the respondents, if the matter is heard by the Single Bench. Accordingly, the matter is finally heard for adjudication by the Single Bench.

3. Factual Matrix

3.1 It is the case of the applicants that they were dismissed from service on 26.06.2006. After dismissal, they submitted a representation to the respondents seeking release of his leave encashment. Initially, leave encashment was released to all similarly placed employees. However, subsequently, the respondents revised their stand and declined to release the leave encashment to the applicants. By communication dated 17.05.2012, Respondent No. 3 rejected the claim, citing the bar under Rule 9(1) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972.

4. Submission by Learned Counsel for the Applicants

4.1 Learned counsel for the applicants contends that leave encashment constitutes a property right, and therefore, is protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. In support of this proposition, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 6770/2013, wherein it was held that pensionary benefits such as gratuity and leave encashment cannot be withheld in the absence of any statutory provisio