Delhi High Court
Delhi Police vs Mukesh Chand Yadav on 9 October, 2024
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~52
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2811/2018
DELHI POLICE .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC with
Ms. Lavanya Kaushik, GP, Mr. Ayush
K.Tanwar and Mr. Rahul Bhaskar,
Advocates
versus
MUKESH CHAND YADAV .....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
JUDGEMENT (ORAL)
% 09.10.2024
1. This writ petition assails judgment dated 22 August 2017
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1 in OA 4276/2016.
2. The respondent has been continuously absent after 4 July 2024.
This is the third date of listing after the said date and the respondent is
not present today either.
3. We have heard Ms. Lavanya Kaushik, learned counsel for the
petitioner and perused the material on record.
4. The respondent, who was dismissed from the services of the
1 "the Tribunal", hereinafter
petitioner, instituted OA 4276/2016 before the learned Tribunal,
seeking a direction to the petitioner to pay leave encashment and
interest at the rate of 12% on delayed payment of GPF from 4 October
2007, i.e. the date of his dismissal, till 8 November 2016, which was
the date of actual receipt of the GPF. In the counter affidavit, the
respondent submitted that under Rule 92, leave encashment could not
be paid to a dismissed employee. Apropos GPF, it was contended that
the employee was required to apply for release of the GPF and
immediately on the application of the respondent, the GPF was
released to the respondent on 8 November 2016.
5. The learned Tribunal has nonetheless in the impugned judgment
directed leave encashment to be released to the respondent and has
further directed that the GPF be released to the respondent with
interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
6. The learned Tribunal has not adverted to either of the
contentions raised by the petitioner.
7. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent to the
present writ petition either. Nor has the respondent turned up to
contest the matter.
8. The submission of Ms. Kaushik apropos the entitlement of the
respondent to leave encashment is correct. Rule 9(1) of the CCS
(Leave) Rules specifically excludes leave encashment from the
entitlement of an officer, who is dismissed from the service.
Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
Signing Date:16.10.2024
16:22:38
9. For want of any traversal by the respondent, we also have to
accept the submission of Ms. Kaushik that the GPF was released to
the respondent immediately on the respondent applying for it and that
therefore no delayed payment of GPF could be said to have taken
place.
10. In that view of the matter, the judgment of the learned Tribunal
awarding leave encashment and interest on GPF to the respondent
cannot sustain. It is accordingly quashed and set aside.
11. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms with no
orders as to costs.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
SHALINDER KAUR, J.
OCTOBER 9, 2024/yg
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
