(Reserved on 21.01.2026)

Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad ****

Original Application No.287/2021 This the 18^th Day of February, 2026 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)

Hon’ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)

1. Ramesh Prasad aged about 60 years son of late Bechu Ram, R/o H.No.12/385-

I, Bazardiha, Varanasi.

2. Gulab Singh aged about 58 years Son of late Vijay Bahadur Singh, R/o Village Abhaina, Post Mangari, Distt. Varanasi.

………..Applicants By Adv: Shri B.N. Singh Smt. Shyama Singh Versus

1. Union of India through its Secretary Ministry of Communication (I&T) Sansad Marg, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. The Supdt. Of Post Officers West Division Varanasi.

3. Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle Lucknow.

……….. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan

O R D E R

By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)

Heard Shri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking a following main relief(s):-

“i. to issue a suitable order or direction to call for record and direct the respondent to pay leave encashment for 300 days at the rate last drawn salary and same shall be paid 18% interest on the entire sum from the due date. ”

3. The brief facts of the case, as per the Original Application, are that the Applicant No.1 was dismissed from service vide order dated 31.10.2019, whereas Applicant No.2 was dismissed from service vide order dated 30.11.2019.

3.1 After their dismissal from service, both the applicants submitted representations to the respondents for payment of earned leave encashment, which had accrued to their credit during the period of service, as admissible under the Fundamental Rules.

3.2 The said representations were duly submitted to the competent authority; however, the respondents failed to release the earned leave encashment amount and passed the impugned orders rejecting the claim of the applicants for leave encashment.

3.3 Aggrieved by the denial of their legitimate dues, the applicants have approached this Tribunal by way of the present Original Application.

4. Counter Affidavit has been filed from the side of the respondents on 01.10.2021, wherein they have denied the claim of the applicants and stated as under:-

4.1 Applicant No.1 and Applicant No.2, while working as Postal Assistants in the Department of Posts, committed financial irregularities. After completion of disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, both the applicants were awarded the major penalty of dismissal from service, vide orders dated

31.10.2019 and 30.11.2019, respectively.

4.2 Subsequent to their dismissal, the applicants filed applications seeking sanction of earned leave encashment. However, as per Rule 9(1) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, the leave at credit of a Government servant ceases from the date of dismissal/removal or resignation, and therefore, dismissed officials are not entitled to leave encashment.

4.3 The applicants were duly informed of their ineligibility for leave encashment through official communications dated 25.11.2019 and 06.01.2020. The rejection of their claim was strictly in accordance with the statutory rules applicable to the Department of Posts.

4.4 There are no rules, instructions, or circulars in the Department of Posts providing for payment of leave encashment to officials who have been dismissed from service. The respondents have specifically denied the applicability of any judicial pronouncements relied upon by the applicants, stating that no such directions have been received or adopted by the department.

4.5 The impugned orders are clear, reasoned and passed strictly in conformity with Rule 9(1) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 and therefore call for no interference by this Tribunal.

5. The submissions of the Learned counsel for the applicants in su