IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI ON THE 17^th 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:

ORDER

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.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PARMESHWAR (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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PARMESHWAR 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