Earned leave salary is considered the property of the employee and is guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, entitling the employee to the salary even in case of dismissal from service.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 26.02.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR W.P.(MD) No.19050 of 2020 K.Jeyaseelan ... Petitioner Vs.

The Superintending Engineer, TANDEDCO, Thanjavur Electricity Distribution Circle, No.1, Vallam Road, Thanjavur District. ... Respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order made in f.vz;.009632/391/ep.gp.(2)/Nfh.Xa;T/2020 dated 04.11.2020 passed by the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to disburse the Earned Leave Salary and Gratuity, to the petitioner with all consequential benefits with interest.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Anwar Sameem For Respondent : No appearance ORDER The petitioner herein, while he was working as Commercial Inspector in the respondent-Corporation, was involved in a criminal case in Crime No.9/2002 registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act and he was charge sheeted in Special Case No.43/2012 on the file of the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act, Tiruchirappalli. The petitioner was acquitted in the said crime and in the appeal filed there against by the Department, he was convicted by order dated 22.01.2019 in C.A.(MD) No. 115 of 2012 by imposing a sentence of three years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing C.A.No.223 of 2020, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court modified the sentence to that of one year Rigorous Imprisonment, instead of three years, by a judgment dated 04.02.2020. Consequent upon the said conviction, which had become final, the respondent-Corporation had issued a show cause notice dated 22.03.2019 and the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 11.04.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner was paid Special Provident Fund, General Provident Fund and Family Benefit Fund. But the petitioner was not paid the earned leave salary, gratuity and pension and the respondent-Corporation rejected the claim of the petitioner for the said amounts by issuing the impugned proceedings in f.vz;. 009632/391/ep.gp.(2)/Nfh.Xa;T/2020, dated 04.11.2020. aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, fairly submitted that the petitioner is not claiming for gratuity and pension, in view of the settled legal position. However, he made his submissions insofar as the amounts payable to him in respect of earned leave salary is concerned.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that earned leave salary is the amount earned by him while the petitioner was in service, which would fall within the meaning of “right to property” and “right to property” is guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and therefore, in spite of dismissal or removal from service of an employee, the property in the shape of salary, earned by the petitioner while he was in service, cannot be denied.

4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on various decisions of this Court in W.A.No.4018 of 2019, dated 22.11.2019; W.A.No.3401 of 2023, dated 11.12.2023; W.A.(MD) No. 903 of 2019, dated 06.09.2019; and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department vs. K.Palaniyandi reported in 2019 (5) CTC 19 and contended that earned leave salary cannot be forfeited or denied, even in case of dismissal of an employee from service or whatever be the problem. 5. No representation for the respondent-Corporation. As there was no representation for the respondent in the forenoon session, this Court passed over the matter to afford an opportunity to the respondent. In spite of the same, no representation for the respondent in the post-lunch session also.

6. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that in terms of R