Allahabad High Court
Udai Vir Singh vs Indian Telephone Industries Limited ... on 15 May, 2024
Author: Prakash Padia
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:88025
Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4802 of 2024
Petitioner :- Udai Vir Singh
Respondent :- Indian Telephone Industries Limited And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kunwar Mayank Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dinesh Kumar Rai,Sudarshan Singh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6046 of 2024
Petitioner :- Tripti Thakral
Respondent :- Indian Telephone Industries Limited And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kunwar Mayank Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dinesh Kumar Rai,Sudarshan Singh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6092 of 2024
Petitioner :- Smt Savita Shukla
Respondent :- Indian Telephone Industries Limited And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kunwar Mayank Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dinesh Kumar Rai,Vinod Kumar Upadhyay
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2424 of 2024
Petitioner :- Shri Phool Chand Singh And 2 Others
Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar,Satish Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dinesh Kumar Rai,Sudarshan Singh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4285 of 2024
Petitioner :- Rajendra Pratap Singh
Respondent :- Indian Telephone Industries Limited And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kunwar Mayank Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dinesh Kumar Rai,Sudarshan Singh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5086 of 2024
Petitioner :- Rama Shankar Singh
Respondent :- I.T.I. Limited (A Govt Of India Undertaking )And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandan Sharma,Sudha Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dinesh Kumar Rai,Sudarshan Singh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5106 of 2024
Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Singh
Respondent :- Iti Limited A Govt Of India Undertaking And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandan Sharma,Sudha Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dinesh Kumar Rai,Sudarshan Singh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5107 of 2024
Petitioner :- Ved Pal
Respondent :- I.T.I Limited A Govt Of India Undertaking And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandan Sharma,Sudha Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dinesh Kumar Rai,Sudarshan Singh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5151 of 2024
Petitioner :- Suresh Narain Mishra
Respondent :- Iti Limited A Govt Of India Undertaking And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandan Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dinesh Kumar Rai,Sudarshan Singh,Sudha Singh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5600 of 2024
Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar
Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhananjay Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dinesh Kumar Rai,Manoj Kumar Singh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6446 of 2024
Petitioner :- Bansh Gopal Mishra
Respondent :- Union Of India Through Ministry Of Communication And Information Technology Government Of India And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dinesh Kumar Rai,Sudarshan Singh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6448 of 2024
Petitioner :- Rekha Sahu
Respondent :- Union Of India Through Ministry Of Communication And Information Technology Government Of India And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudarshan Singh,Vinod Kumar Upadhyay
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6455 of 2024
Petitioner :- Basant Lal Ojha
Respondent :- Union Of India Through Ministry Of Communication And Information Technology Government Of India And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dinesh Kumar Rai,Sudarshan Singh,Vinod Kumar Upadhyay
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6694 of 2024
Petitioner :- Ram Jeet Singh
Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Sunder Maurya
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Anurag Sharma,Dinesh Kumar Rai
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6756 of 2024
Petitioner :- Smt Kalindi Mishra
Respondent :- Indian Telephone Industries Limited And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kunwar Mayank Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dinesh Kumar Rai,Sudarshan Singh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6778 of 2024
Petitioner :- Ram Chandar Gupta
Respondent :- Indian Telephone Industries Limited And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kunwar Mayank Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dinesh Kumar Rai,Sudarshan Singh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7014 of 2024
Petitioner :- Parmatma Nand Pandey
Respondent :- Indian Telephone Industries Limited And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kunwar Mayank Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dinesh Kumar Rai,Sudarshan Singh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7071 of 2024
Petitioner :- Brij Pal Singh
Respondent :- Indian Telephone Industries Limited And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kunwar Mayank Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Dinesh Kumar Rai,Sudarshan Singh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7428 of 2024
Petitioner :- Tanveer Kamal
Respondent :- Indian Telephone Industries Limited And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kunwar Mayank Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dinesh Kumar Rai,Sudarshan Singh
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
1. Since the controversy involved in all the aforesaid writ petitions are absolutely identical, hence with the consent of the counsel for the parties they were connected together and disposed of by the common order passed in the leading case.
2. Heard Shri Kunwar Mayank Singh, Shri Chandan Sharma, Ms. Sudha Singh, Shri Brijesh Kumar Mishra, Shri Satish Kumar Pandey, Shri Anil Kumar and Shri S.S. Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioners in the present writ petition as well as in all the connected petitions and Shri Dinesh Kumar Rai as well as Shri Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.
3. The aforesaid writ petitions are filed inter-alia with the prayer to issue a mandamus directing the respondents to pay the petitioners amount of Privilege Leave Encashment along-with interest and in some of the petitions, a prayer has also been made to pay Long Leave Travel Concession allowances along with interest payable from the date of retirement till the actual payment of the aforesaid amount.
4. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court from time to time, a personal affidavit has been filed by the Additional General Manager, HR and Services at Indian Telephone Industries Limited, Naini, Allahabad (Prayagraj) today in the Court, the same is taken on record.
5. In paragraph-5 of the aforesaid affidavit it is stated that the respondents will make the payment of aforesaid dues to the petitioner / petitioners in the present case as well as in all the connected matters within a period of three months.
6. In response to the same, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment and order dated 03.03.2023 passed in Writ A No. 2075 of 2023 (Ashok Kumar Shukla vs. Union of India, Thru, Its Secy, Ministry of Communication, New Delhi, And Others). It is admitted between the parties that the aforesaid matter is also related to Indian Telephone Industries Limited, Rai Bareilly and on the basis of the aforesaid it is argued that the petitioners are also entitled for the payment of interest on the delayed payment at the rate of 7% p.a.. It is further argued that aggrieved against the aforesaid order, Special Appeal Defective No. 72 of 2024 (Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. Thru. Agm/ Unit Head, Raebareilly and Another vs. Ashok Kumar Shukla and Another) was filed by the Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. Raibareilly, the same was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 06.02.2024.
7. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, the Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7939 of 2024 was filed by the Indian Telephone Industries Limited before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 08.04.2024. Order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 08.04.2024 reads as follows:-
"Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.
The first petitioner is a Government of India undertaking. The first respondent retired from the employment of the first petitioner on 28th February, 2018. Admittedly, he was entitled to the benefit of leave encashment. The benefit was belatedly made available to him on 27th December, 2022. In short, there was a delay of 4 years and 10 months in releasing the benefit of leave encashment which he was entitled to receive on his retirement. All that the learned Single Judge has done it is to direct the petitioner to pay interest at the rate of 7% p.a. on the leave encashment amount for the delayed period. The said order has been confirmed by the impugned order by a Division Bench in appeal.
The learned senior counsel pointed out that in the earlier order in SLP(Civil)No.1360/2019, the issue regarding financial constraints of the petitioner was kept open and the said petition where a similar order was passed was dismissed only on the grounds of delay and the fact that the order was complied with.
The learned senior counsel has placed on record a letter dated 8th April, 2024 issued by the Chief Finance Manager of the first petitioner indicating the poor financial condition of the petitioner.
However, we cannot forget that the first petitioner is a Government of India undertaking. There was no reason for the Government of India undertaking to deny the benefit of leave encashment for a long period of 4 years and 10 months. A contention is raised by the learned Single Judge was that the interest should not be ordered to be paid, as the payment of leave encashment benefit is not a statutory payment. The said contention deserves to be rejected for the simple reason that the entitlement of the first respondent to receive the benefit of leave encashment on the date of his retirement was established. There is no reason for the Government of India undertaking like the first petitioner to withhold the said amount for a long period of 4 years and 10 months.
The learned senior counsel pointed out that even for payment of salary to the employees, the first petitioner has to look upon the Government of India to release the necessary amount. If that be so, the first petitioner can always request the Government of India to release the necessary amount so that the interest can be paid.
The learned senior counsel relied upon a Memorandum of the year 1999 which makes it clear that no interest will be payable on the amount towards leave encashment. After the Writ Court found that there was no valid justification for not paying the leave encashment amount for a period of 4 years and 10 months, interest at the rate of 7% p.a. has been granted. We find that the Writ Court was well within its powers to do so.
Hence, there is no merit in the Special Leave Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
However, on the prayer made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, we grant time of three months to the petitioners to comply with the impugned orders.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of."
8. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the respondents will make the payment of Privilege Leave Encashment and Leave Travel Concession Allowances to the petitioners as prayed in the present petition and in all the connected matters within a period of three months from today. The petitioners are also entitled for interest @ 7% p.a. on the aforesaid payment from the date they became entitled till the actual payment is made.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 15.5.2024
Swati
