Leave encashment constitutes salary and must be paid upon resignation if accepted unconditionally, affirming the principles of fair employment rights.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers :

“i. Call for the records leading to Ext.P9 order and to quash the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari ;

ii. to declare that the policy of the respondent company to deny the benefit of earned leave encashment and extended Medical Insurance to families of employees like the petitioner is illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India ;

iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to disburse the amount due to the petitioner by way of earned leave encashment, loss due denial of extended medical insurance facility to the petitioner and to refund the amount deducted towards shortfall in notice period ;

iv. “c)(i) To declare that the termination of services of the petitioner, in essence, was voluntary retirement and that the petitioner is entitled for pensionary benefits under the 1995 Pension Scheme provided he fulfills the condition of refunding of the entire amount of the Corporation's contribution to the provident fund along with interest accrued thereon ;

v. c) ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to disburse benefits of arrears of pension payable from the date of resignation in accordance with the application rules.”

vi. grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

2. Before commencement of the arguments, learned senior counsel Sri.E.K.Nandakumar appearing on behalf of the petitioner at the outset submitted that he would not be pressing relief No.(i) and confined to relief Nos.(ii) and (iii). Keeping in view the aforementioned prayer, the facts pertaining to those prayers only would be referred to in the finding of mine.

3. The petitioner joined the National Insurance Company as Assistant Administrative Officer, on 01.07.1986. After having rendered 21 years of service, submitted advance notice of resignation on 02.04.2007 which was accepted by the respondent vide Ext.P2 dated 04.07.2007 with effect from 01.06.2007. It is contended that the petitioner during the service had not availed the leave encashment but earned to his credit and thus, at the time of settlement of the dues, was entitled to the leave encashment. However the respondents denied the same by relying upon paragraphs Nos.4 and 5 of the General Insurance (Termination, Superannuation and Retirement of Officers and Development Staff) Scheme, 1976. Provisions of the aforementioned Scheme do envisage the availment of leave encashment at the time of retirement with a caveat that a person would not leave the Insurance Company without giving the advance notice in writing, of three months. The notice of the petitioner pertains to a period of two months which has been accepted on 01.06.2007 without any condition or stipulation. The action of the respondents in not releasing the leave encashment which is a part of the salary is wholly abberrative, fallacious and contumacious. In support of the aforementioned contention, petitioner relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad Saini and others v. State of Rajasthan and others [JT 2022 (10) SC 60]

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the provisions of the Scheme are unambiguous and do not require any interpretation, for, the persons falling in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Scheme would not be eligible for leave encashment. The petitioner since had left the job by submitting the resignation, therefore, would be excluded from the applicability o