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