THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTI CE JUVVADI SRI DEVI WRI T PETI TI ON No.34849 of 2014

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondents in not paying the service benefits of petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and seeks consequential direction directing the respondents to pay the amounts towards Provident Fund, pension, gratuity, un-availed earned leave amounts, SRBS, SBT and CCS amounts for the services rendered by him from 10.11.1986 to

07.02.2006.

2. Heard both sides and perused the record.

3. Petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the respondent- Corporation on 10.11.1986 and his services were regularized with effect from 05.08.1987. He was removed from service on 07.02.2006 on the ground of unauthorized absence. When he requested the respondents to settle his service benefits for the period of his service i.e. from 10.11.1986 to 07.02.2006, the respondents did not pay the same. Hence, this writ petition.

4. It is also stated that pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, dated 18.11.2014, the respondent-Corporation has paid the SRBS, PF (T) and CCS amounts to the petitioner.

5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents admitting about the service of petitioner with the Corporation from 10.11.1986 to 07.02.2006. It is also stated that they have paid him the amounts towards SRBS, PF (T) and CCS amounts pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, dated 18.11.2014. It is their case that the petitioner is not entitled to any amount towards un-availed earned leave as he was removed from service. In this connection, they referred to Regulation 50 (B) of the TSRTC Employees (Leave) Regulations and also contended that in similar matter in W.A.No.138 of 2019 preferred by the Corporation, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has granted stay of payment of such benefits. It is further contended that the petitioner is not eligible for any pension, as he has not completed 55 years of age as on the date of removal i.e. 07.02.2006. Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. In this case, the service of petitioner with the respondent- Corporation from 10.11.1986 to 07.02.2006 is not in dispute. The ground on which the respondents are denying payments to the petitioner is that he was removed from service. Regulation 50 (B) of the TSRTC (Leave) Regulations deals with encashment of earned leave. As per the said Regulation, an employee of the Corporation entitled for encashment of leave earned during his service and the amount towards the earned leave accumulated during the period of service is payable to the employee on his retirement from service or on cessation of employment or on death. The said provision does not prohibit payment of such amount in case if an employee is removed from service. Therefore, the respondents cannot deny payment towards encashment of earned leave accumulated during the period for which the petitioner had worked with them. Coming to the interim order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.138 of 2019, the said writ appeal has been preferred by the Corporation against the order of a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.578 of 2011, dated 04.10.2018, wherein, the learned Single Judge has directed the respondent-Corporation to pay gratuity and earned leave amounts to the petitioner therein. It is to be seen that it was only an interim order and the matter has not attained finality.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the Hon’ble Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.640 of 2007, dated 13.04.2015, which relates to the case of an employee removed from service. In such circumstances, while referring to Regulation 50 (B) of the TSRTC Employees’ (Leave) Regulations, it is held that the said Regulation does not contain any prohibition for encashment of leave in case of employees who were removed from service, and accordingly, confirmed the orders of the learned Single Judge directing to pay amount towards 77 days