SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI

ON THE 17th OF NOVEMBER, 2022

WRIT PETITION No. 9930 of 2017

BETWEEN:-

MOHANLAL GUPTA S/O SHRI B.L GUPTA, AGED

ABOUT

62

YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED

OFFICER

MADHYANCHAL

GRAMIN

BANK

BEHIND SPS MALL URRAHAT REWA (MADHYA

PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER

(BY SHRI ANURAG GOHIL, ADVOCATE )

AND

1.

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK THROUGH ITS

CHAIRMAN HEAD OFFICE PODDAR COLONY

TILI ROAD SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.

GENERAL

MANAGER

(ADMINISTRATION)

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK (MADHYA

PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI VIKRAM JOHRI, ADVOCATE)

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the

following:

The petitioner has filed this petition while praying for following reliefs:-

"7.(i) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call the

entire record of the petitioner pertaining to the earned

leave encashment.

(ii) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside

the impugned order dated 23-05-2015.

1

Signed by: PARMESHWAR

GOPE

Signing time: 12/6/2022

11:45:55 AM

Signature Not Verified

(iii) The Hon'ble Court may direct respondents to

release the benefit of earned leave encashment to the

petitioner within a period of 60 days and with the interest

of 12% per annum from the date of superannuation.

(iv) Any other relief this Hon'ble Court deems fit

and proper under given facts and circumstances of the

case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner along

with cost of litigation throughout."

The contents as elaborated in the petition reveal that the petitioner, who

was working with the respondent/Bank, as Officer Category-II, after

disciplinary inquiry, vide order dated 22-04-2014, was removed from service

and the said order of removal was passed just before the scheduled date of

superannuation i.e. 30-06-2014.After the said order, the petitioner made

representation to the respondents to release the benefits, which are admissible

to the petitioner upon superannuation.

The respondents though, released the gratuity to the petitioner but, did

not release the earned leave encashment and the same was withheld. The

petitioner then submitted representation dated 03-07-2014 but, the said

representation was declined vide letter dated 10-07-2014(Annexure P/3).

Thereafter, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 15-07-2014

(Annexure P/4), the same was again declined vide impugned order dated 23-03-

2015. Thereafter, an appeal was also preferred by the petitioner vide memo

contained in Annexure-P/6 but, the petitioner was not extended the benefit of

encashment of privileged leave. Therefore, seeking quashment of order dated

23-03-2015, this petition was filed by the petitioner with a further relief to direct

2

Signed by: PARMESHWAR

GOPE

Signing time: 12/6/2022

11:45:55 AM

Signature Not Verified

the respondents to confer the benefit of earned leave encashment with interest.

The counsel for the petitioner contends that the service conditions of

employee of the petitioner are governed by the Regulations which are contained

in Annexure-P/8. It is the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that

Regulation -61 of the Regulations provides for privilege leave. Regulation-67 of

Regulations, provides for lapse of leave. In terms of Regulation-67 of

Regulations, when an employee of the Bank ceases to be in service, he is

entitled to be paid all allowances and pay for the period of privilege leave at his

credit and therefore, submits that there is no clause in Regulation-67, which

deprives the petitioner from availing the benefit of leave encashment. It is

submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had number of

leaves to his credit and therefore, despite the order of removal, which is

contained in Annexure- P/1 dated 22-04-2014, the petitioner could not have

been deprived of the benefit of leave encashment. It is also contended by the

counsel for the petitioner that the amount of gratuity has been released to the

petitioner and therefore, the respondents could not have withheld the leave

encashment under the garb of Regulation-67 of the Regulations, which are

contained in Annexure-P/8.

The counsel while placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in

the case of State of Jharkhand and Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava

and Ors. (2013) 12 SCC 210 submits that the present petition deserves to be

allowed inasmuch as, the Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Srivastava

(supra) has held that terminal dues like pension, gratuity or leave encashment

cannot be withheld in absence of any statutory provisions to do so. It is the

further contention of the counsel that the pari materia provisions of

Regulations-61 and 67 have been incorporated in Maharashtra Gramin Bank

3

Signed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top