ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order passed by the respondent in PAD/162/2012-13, dated 19.10.2012 and consequently direct the respondent to settle the privilege leave encashment standing to the credit of the petitioner with interest at 12% per annum.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner joined in the service under the respondent in Clerical Grade on 07.01.1981. He was promoted to the post of Officer in April, 2000 and then as Officer Scale-II in the year 2008. He resigned his service after giving due notice to the respondent and was relieved by the respondent on 01.09.2012. On the date of relieving, he had completed 31 years and 8 months of service. His last pay drawn was Rs.50,549/-. As per the Rules applicable, he is entitled to encash privilege leave standing to the credit to a maximum of 240 days. However, the respondent failed to settle his privilege leave credit at the time of settling his terminal benefits. Hence, the petitioner sent a representation to the respondent, dated 15.10.2012 with regard to privilege leave encashment. However, he received a reply from the respondent, dated 19.10.2012 stating that encashment of privilege leave is applicable only to the staff, who has retired from service or to the legal heirs of the employee in the event of death of the employee while in service. Therefore, this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner resigned his job. Rule 67 of the Pandyan Grama Bank Staff (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010, stipulates that all leave shall lapse on the death of an officer or employee or if he ceases to be in the service of the Bank. It also provides that if an officer or employee dies in service, sums which would have been payable to the officer or employee as if he has availed of the privilege leave that he had accumulated at the time of his death will be paid to his legal representatives. Similarly when the staff retires from service, he shall be eligible to be paid a sum equivalent to the emoluments for the period of privilege leave he had accumulated subject to Regulation 61(4). As per Regulation 61(4) of the Pandyan Grama Bank Staff (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010, privilege leave may be accumulated upto 31st December, 1989 for an aggregate period upto 180 days and from 1st January, 1990, the privilege leave may be accumulated upto not more than 240 days. There is no provision made for encashment of privilege leave by an officer or employee who resigned the job. Thus, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to claim privilege leave encashment.

4. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Regulation 78 of Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948, provides encashment of ordinary leave at his/her credit as on the date of resignation, subject to a maximum of five months ordinary leave. Regulation 38 of Indian Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979, has also similar provisions. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pressed into service the order of the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12921 of 2019, dated 05.10.2020 (Shrinath Upadhyay Vs. Union of India), for the proposition that even an employee, who was compulsorily retired was permitted to encash privilege leave accumulated to his credit.

5. Relying on these provisions and order of the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12921 of 2019, dated 05.10.2020 (Shrinath Upadhyay Vs. Union of India), learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though there is no specific regulation in Pandyan Grama Bank Staff (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010, this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can order encashment of privilege leave benefit available to the