Sanjay Kumar Saha vs Uco Bank & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 780 Cal/2

ORDER SHEET

                             WPO 918 of 2021
                    IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                      Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                              ORIGINAL SIDE


                           SANJAY KUMAR SAHA
                                   VS.
                            UCO BANK & ORS.


BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE
Date: 7th March, 2022


                               Mr. Dibyendu Chatterjee, Ms. Piyali Paul, Advocates for
                                                                       the petitioner.
                                     Mr. Soumen Das, Advocate for respondent bank.

The Court : After the disputes having been resolved through a joint

meeting the only issue which is outstanding in this matter is the petitioner's

entitlement for leave salary. By a judgment and order passed in WP 438 of

2017 on 7th November, 2019 the petitioner was reinstated with continuity in

service upon imposition of penalty of reduction of his basic pay as was

directed by the disciplinary authority in its order dated 1 st September, 2008.

The moment the petitioner was reinstated with continuity in service, the

petitioner says to have become entitled to the benefits of all his past service.

The bank preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court upheld the judgment and

order dated 7th November, 2019. The bank has not challenged the order of

the Division Bench. The order of the learned Single Judge as upheld by the

Hon'ble Division Bench has achieved finality.

The petitioner, therefore, according to me is entitled to the leave

salary with regard to the leave for the entire stretch of his service i.e. from

1985 when he was appointed till his superannuation on 31 st July, 2020 is to

be considered to be continuous.

The bank says that the petitioner is entitled to leave salary for only

19 days privilege leave being the balance at the time of retirement as per the

statement of the bank appearing at paragraph 6 of the report affirmed on 1 st

February, 2022.

The petitioner by taking exception to such report says that the 19

days period is only for the period when he joined on being reinstated and his

superannuation on 31st July, 2020, the petitioiner is entitled to more days of

leave salary.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I direct the respondent

bank to give complete details of the leave the petitioner was entitled to

between 1985 and 2020 on year wise basis and for the number of days in

each year the petitioner had availed the leave. The bank shall also indicate

the total number of days for which the petitioner was entitled to leave during

his entire service tenure between 1985 and his joining on being reinstated

and the total number of days of leave the petitioner had availed during such

period. The respondent bank shall also indicate whether there is any cap

with regard to maximum number of days for which an employee of the

respondent bank is entitled to leave salary. These details should be

furnished in a report in the form of an affidavit to be filed by 25 th March,

2022.

Let this matter appear on 30th March, 2022 for further consideration.

(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)

pa