236.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 04.12.2025 Amarjit Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. Baldev S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punjab.

-----

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 20.02.2023 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab, whereby his claim for leave encashment has been rejected. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought for directing the respondents to release the payment of leave encashment alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Senior Assistant in the office of Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab, Mohali, and a criminal case was registered against him and in the said case, he was convicted, vide judgment dated 30.11.2015 and on the basis of said conviction, he was dismissed from service in February, 2016. Thereafter, he submitted a representation dated 14.12.2020 for grant of payment of leave encashment. Since no action was taken on the said representation, he served a legal notice dated 08.08.2022 upon respondent No.2. However, when no action was taken on the said legal notice, he filed CWP No.23716 of 2022, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17.10.2022, with a direction to the respondent to consider the legal notice dated 08.08.2022, by passing a speaking order, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The said claim of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.2, vide order dated 20.02.2023, by stating that since the petitioner has been dismissed from service and in terms of Rule 8.21 of the Punjab Civil Services (Volume 1, Part 1), he is not entitled for leave encashment. It is the said order which has been impugned by the petitioner by way of present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of judgment passed by this Court in Dhir Chand Versus State of Haryana and others, 2019(1) S.C.T. 134, the petitioner is entitled for leave encashment and therefore, the action of respondent No.2 in rejecting his claim vide impugned order dated 20.02.2023 is totally illegal and arbitrary and is against the law laid down by this Court in the abovesaid judgment.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the judgment passed in Dhir Chand's case (supra), on which the reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner, has already been distinguished by the another Coordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment rendered in Ram Kumar Ranga Versus State of Haryana and others: 2019(4) S.C.T. 99 and in the said judgment the relevant provisions of the rules and instructions have been extensively considered and it has been held that an employee who has been dismissed from the service is not entitled for leave encashment.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file.

6. This Court in Rajesh Bhalla Versus State of Punjab and others, 2024 NCPHHC 2264 has considered a similar issue wherein also a dismissed employee was claiming the benefit of leave encashment and in the said judgment, it has been held as under:-

8. No doubt, the learned Single Bench of this Court in Dhir Chand’s case (supra) has held that the dismissed employee is entitled for leave encashment, however, the said judgment has been considered by another Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ram Kumar Ranga’s case (supra) and it has been held that the relevant provisions of Rules and the latest instructions were not brought to the notice of the Court at the time of deciding Dhir Chand’s case (supra). The relevant portion from the judgment passed in Ram Kumar Ranga’s case (supra) is as under :-

“47. Therefo