Kerala High Court
The Jawaharlal Nehru Tropical ... vs Padmesh Pandaram Pillai on 2 June, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
WA NO. 1450 OF 2024 1 2025:KER:38186
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2025/12TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WA NO.1450 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.03.2024 IN WP(C)NO.24841
OF 2022 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:
THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TROPICAL BOTANICAL GARDEN
AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE
(FORMERLY THE TROPICAL BOTANIC GARDEN & RESEARCH
INSTITUTE) REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PALODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695562., PIN - 695562
BY ADV C.K. KARUNAKARAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER:
1 PADMESH PANDARAM PILLAI
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. V.P. PILLAI, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, CENTRAL
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, KASARAGOD, RESIDING AT
'RIYA', KARATTUVAYYAL, KASARAGODE- 671315., PIN -
671315
2 THE KERALA STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE,
TECHNOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, SHASTHRA BHAVAN, PATTOM
P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004., PIN - 695004
ADVS.SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN
SRI.P.A.HARISH; SMT.ANUSREE C.
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN FOR R2.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.05.2025, THE COURT ON 02.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 1450 OF 2024 2 2025:KER:38186
"C.R"
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The 1st respondent in W.P.(C)No.24841 of 2022 has filed this
writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the
Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated
04.03.2024 of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition, which
was one filed by the 1st respondent herein-writ petitioner, invoking
the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding
the appellant Institute to disburse the unpaid balance gratuity
amount calculated on the basis of the years of service of the
petitioner in the appellant Institute and the pay due him as per the
recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission; a writ of
mandamus commanding the appellant to disburse the money
equivalent to 300 days of earned leave to the credit of the
petitioner, while serving the appellant Institute; a writ of
mandamus commanding the appellant to release the petitioner
pay arrear benefits of the 7th Central Pay Commission from
01.01.2016 to 09.06.2016; a writ of mandamus commanding the
appellant to forward the petitioner's service book to his present
WA NO. 1450 OF 2024 3 2025:KER:38186
employer, namely, the Central University of Kerala; and writ of
mandamus commanding the appellant to pay the petitioner
interest for delayed payment of benefits.
2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the
petitioner joined the service of the appellant Institute, i.e.,
Jawaharlal Nehru Tropical Botanical Garden and Research Institute
(formerly Tropical Botanical Garden and Research Institute),
Palod, which is a constituent institution of the 2 nd respondent
Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment, as
Scientific Assistant, on 13.11.1995, who was promoted as
Scientist E-II. Later, he left the service of the appellant Institute
on 09.06.2016 and joined as an Associate Professor in the
Department of Genomic Science at the Central University of
Kerala. As on 09.06.2016, the date of leaving the service of the
appellant Institute, the petitioner had completed more than 20
years of continuous service in the appellant Institute. The
petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.10618 of
2018, when the appellant Institute refused to consider his claim of
lien. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment dated
19.11.2020, giving liberty to approach the appellant Institute by
submitting a representation, within the time limit stipulated in that
WA NO. 1450 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:38186
judgment. Pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.P3 judgment,
the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 27.11.2020
before the appellant Institute to sanction closure of Contributory
Employees Provident Fund, encashment of earned leave
equivalent to 300 days in his credit, gratuity amount in par with
the years of service in the appellant Institute, closure amount of
group insurance, pay arrears as per the recommendation of 7 th
Central Pay Commission, from 01.01.2016 to 09.06.2016; and
transfer of his service book to the Central University of Kerala.
3. On receipt of Ext.P4 representation, the petitioner was
paid Rs.48,989/- towards the closure of the group insurance claim
and Rs.10 lakhs towards the gratuity amount. The amount towards
the closure of the Contributory Employees Provident Fund was
transferred through the office of the Employees Provident Fund
Organisation. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to better
gratuity and hence the balance amount has to be paid. He is also
entitled to encashment of 300 days leave on his credit.
4. In the writ petition, the 2nd respondent Kerala State
Council for Science, Technology and Environment filed a counter
affidavit dated 03.10.2023, wherein it was stated that the
petitioner, while working as Scientist-E, was relieved from service
WA NO. 1450 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:38186
to take up employment as Associate Professor in the Department
of Genomic Sciences in the Central University of Kerala. Since the
said University is not a State-owned institution, there is no
provision for transferring the earned leave surrender value. The
2nd respondent placed reliance on Rule 12.2 of the Service Rules
of the Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and
Environment, which applies to its constituent institutions,
including the appellant Institute. As per the said Rule, employees
in the administrative category and others, except scientific
category, will be permitted to surrender leave with salary at the
rate to which the Government employees are allowed to surrender
earned leave. Since the petitioner is not under the administrative
category but was under the scientific category, he is not entitled
to surrender the earned leave.
5. On behalf of the appellant Institute a statement dated
19.09.2022 has been filed in the writ petition, wherein it was
stated that the earned leave standing in the credit of the petitioner
cannot be transferred to the Central University of Kerala, since no
rule or guidelines stipulates the transfer of earned leave from one
autonomous body under the State Government to an autonomous
body under the Central Government. As far as gratuity is
WA NO. 1450 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:38186
concerned, the maximum limit of Rs.10 lakh has already been paid
and group insurance has also been released. Payment of gratuity
without ceiling was granted only to those who have obtained a
specific direction of this Court, as in the case of persons covered
by the judgment dated 01.11.2018 in W.P.(C)No.24687 of 2017
and connected matters.
6. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit dated 26.11.2023
to the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, producing
therewith Exts.P11 to P13 documents. Rule 8 Part II Section II of
Ext.P11 Service Rules deals with leave in general.
7. After considering the rival contentions, the learned
Single Judge noticed that even if the petitioner-1st respondent
herein resigns from the appellant Institute, he is entitled to claim
leave salary to the maximum of 300 days as per Note (i) of Rule
8.9 of the Service Rules. As per Ext.P12 order dated 03.05.2017
and Ext.P13 order dated 10.06.2019, the appellant Institute
sanctioned earned leave surrender in respect of
Dr.Mukundakumar, Principal Scientist and Dr.K.Sathishkumar, Sr.
Principal Scientist, invoking Rule 8.9 of Ext.P11 Service Rules.
Therefore, the learned Single Judge found that the petitioner,
being a similarly situated person in the scientific category, is also
WA NO. 1450 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:38186
entitled to terminal leave surrender by invoking Rule 8.9 of the
Service Rules. The learned Single Judge noticed that there is no
dispute that the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay
Commission have been adopted by the appellant Institute and also
by the 2nd respondent Kerala State Council for Technology and
Environment, from 01.01.2016. Therefore, the petitioner is
entitled to arrears of pay from 01.01.2016 to 09.06.2016, the date
on which he resigned from the appellant Institute and joined the
Central University of Kerala. Therefore, the learned Single Judge
allowed the writ petition with the directions contained in paragraph
5 of that judgment, which read thus;
"1. Invoking Rule 8.9 of the Rules the petitioner is entitled
to claim terminal leave surrender to the tune of 300 days.
2. As far as gratuity is concerned, Rule 14 of the Rules
governs gratuity, which is a better gratuity than the Gratuity
Act. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a better gratuity
under Rule 14 of the Rules. The petitioner shall be paid the
arrears of pay under the 7th Central Pay Commission from
01.01.2016 to 09.06.2016.
3. Computation of the amounts due to the petitioner as
stated above shall be done and orders in this regard shall be
passed by the 1st respondent, within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The claim for interest is left open."
8. This writ appeal was filed along with C.M.Appl.No.1 of
WA NO. 1450 OF 2024 8 2025:KER:38186
2024 for condoning the filing delay of 116 days, which was
condoned by the order dated 10.10.2024.
9. On 20.05.2025, when this writ appeal came up for
consideration, this Court passed a detailed order on the delay in
uploading the handwritten order dated 04.11.2024 in the CMS and
transmitting back the file to the Chambers. Registry to place the
explanations offered by the officers in the Writ Appeal Section and
Court Officers Section before Registrar General, who shall consider
the question as to whether further action is necessary in the
matter.
10. Heard arguments of the learned Standing Counsel for
the appellant-1st respondent, the learned counsel for the 1st
respondent-petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the
2nd respondent.
11. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant
Institute contended that the 1st respondent was relieved from the
service of the appellant Institute on getting an appointment at the
Central University of Kerala. As such, he is not eligible for the
surrender of leave with salary, to a maximum of 300 days, and for
its encashment, as per the provisions contained in Rule 8.9 of
Ext.P11 Service Rules, read with Note (i) to Rule 8.9. The
WA NO. 1450 OF 2024 9 2025:KER:38186
surrender of leave with salary and its encashment is the
entitlement of an employee of the appellant Institute at the time
of retirement or death while in service or termination of service or
resignation. By Ext.P12 order dated 03.05.2017 and Ext.P13 order
dated 10.06.2019, encashment of earned leave for 300 days
accumulated at the credit of two scientists, who retired from the
service of the appellant Institute, was granted under Rule 8.9 Part
II Section II of Ext.P11 Service Rules. Since the 1st respondent
was relieved from the service of the appellant Institute, as
evidenced by Ext.P1 experience certificate, who enjoyed retention
of lien for 2 years, is not a person similarly situated to those in
Ext.P12 order dated 03.05.2017 and Ext.P13 order dated
10.06.2019, therefore, the 1st respondent cannot rely on Exts.P12
and P13 orders.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1 st
respondent-petitioner contended that the judgment of the learned
Single Judge is one rendered after appreciating in the proper
perspective the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides.
Therefore, the said judgment warrants no interference in this
appeal. The 1st respondent, who left the service of the appellant
institute on 09.06.2016, after serving the institute for more than
WA NO. 1450 OF 2024 10 2025:KER:38186
20 years, as evident from Ext.P1 experience certificate dated
14.06.2016, to join as an Associate Professor in the Department
of Genomic Science at the Central University of Kerala, was issued
with Ext.P2 last pay certificate dated 09.06.2016. After Ext.P3
judgment of this Court dated 19.11.2020 in W.P.(C)No.10618 of
2018, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation dated
27.11.2020, tendering technical resignation from the post of
Scientist E-II at the appellant Institute, with effect from
09.06.2018, to continue in the post of Associate Professor in the
Department of Genomic Science at the Central University of
Kerala. In the said representation, the petitioner has sought for
disbursal of terminal benefits, like the closure of contributory
employees provident fund, the encashment of earned leave, the
gratuity amount, the closure of group insurance and pay arrears
based on recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission, for
the period from 01.01.2016 to 09.06.2016. The entitlement of the
1st respondent to encashment of earned leave, equivalent to 300
days earned leave in his credit, is governed by the provisions
under Rule 8.9 of Ext.P11 Service Rules, read with Note (i) to Rule
8.9 and Rule 5. On the other hand, Rule 12.1 of the said Rules
deals with the leave salary, and Rule 12.2 relied on by the learned
WA NO. 1450 OF 2024 11 2025:KER:38186
Standing Counsel for the appellant Institute and the learned
Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent, deals with the surrender
of leave with salary.
13. The learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent
contended that as per Rule 12.2 of Ext.P11 Service Rules, the 1 st
respondent-writ petitioner, who was working as Scientist E-II at
the appellant Institute, in the scientific category, is not entitled to
surrender the leave with salary, and as such the learned Single
Judge went wrong in allowing the writ petition by the judgment
dated 04.03.2024. Further, the 1st respondent, who was relieved
from the service of the appellant Institute on getting an
appointment at the Central University of Kerala, is not eligible for
the surrender of leave with salary, to a maximum of 300 days, and
for its encashment, as per the provisions contained in Rule 8.9 of
Ext.P11 Service Rules, read with Note (i) to Rule 8.9.
14. As already noticed, one of the contentions raised by the
learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent Kerala State
Council for Science, Technology and Environment is that as per
Rule 12.2 of Part II Section II of Ext.P11 Service Rules, the 1 st
respondent, who was working as Scientist E-II at the appellant
Institute, in the scientific category, is not entitled to surrender the
WA NO. 1450 OF 2024 12 2025:KER:38186
leave with salary, and as such the learned Single Judge went
wrong granting such a relief.
15. Rule 12 of Ext.P11 Service Rules deals with
miscellaneous provisions. Rule 12.1 deals with leave salary. As per
Rule 12.1, an employee on leave with salary or on maternity leave
shall be entitled to leave salary equal to the pay and allowances
which the employee would have drawn had the employee
remained on duty during the period of leave. Rule 12.2 deals with
surrender of leave. As per Rule 12.2, employees in the
administrative category and others except scientific category will
be permitted to surrender the leave with salary at the rate the
government employees are allowed to surrender earned leave.
16. Admittedly, as evidenced by Ext.P12 order dated
03.05.2017 and Ext.P13 order dated 10.06.2019, encashment of
earned leave for 300 days accumulated at the credit of two
scientists, who retired from the service of the appellant Institute,
was granted under Rule 8.9 Part II Section II of Ext.P11 Service
Rules. The only contention raised by the appellant Institute in this
writ appeal is that, since the 1st respondent was relieved from the
service of the appellant Institute, as evidenced by Ext.P1
experience certificate, who enjoyed retention of lien for 2 years,
WA NO. 1450 OF 2024 13 2025:KER:38186
he is not a person similarly situated to those in Ext.P12 order dated
03.05.2017 and Ext.P13 order dated 10.06.2019. Therefore, the
1st respondent cannot rely on Exts.P12 and P13 orders. When the
appellant Institute has no case in this writ appeal that Rule 12.2
of Ext.P11 Service Rules, disentitles an employee working in the
scientific category, to surrender the leave with salary, to a
maximum of 300 days, and for its encashment, as per the
provisions contained in Rule 8.9 of Ext.P11 Service Rules, read
with Note (i) to Rule 8.9, at the time of his retirement or death
while in service or termination of service or resignation, we find
that this Court need not consider in these proceedings the rival
contentions of the 1st respondent-petitioner and the 2nd
respondent on the applicability of Rule 12.2 of Ext.P11 Service
Rules on the claim made by the 1st respondent for the surrender
of leave with salary and its encashment under Rule 8.9 of Ext.P11
Service Rules, read with Note (i) to Rule 8.9.
17. The appellant Institute, is a constituent institution of
the 2nd respondent Kerala State Council for Science, Technology
and Environment. Admittedly, Ext.P11 Service Rules governs the
employees of the appellant Institute. Rule 8 of the said Rules deals
with leave. As per Rule 8.9. leave with salary earned by an
WA NO. 1450 OF 2024 14 2025:KER:38186
employee as on the date of retirement shall lapse on his retirement
provided leave salary for the leave with salary earned as on date,
subject to a maximum of 300 days paid for. As per Note (i) of Rule
8.9, the said benefit shall also accrue to an employee who dies
while in service or whose service is terminated under Rule 3 or
who resigns under Rule 5. As per Note (ii) of Rule 8.9, the
sanctioning authority will suo motu sanction the encashment. As
per Note (iii) of Rule 8.9, leave salary for the leave with salary
surrendered will be calculated at 1/30th of the monthly salary per
day, irrespective of the month in which it is encased. As per Note
(iv) of Rule 8.9, house rent allowance and city compensatory
allowance will be admissible in respect of terminal encashment.
18. Rule 3 of Ext.P11 Service Rules, which deals with
termination of service, which reads thus;
"3. Termination of Service
3.1. The service of an employee may be terminated by the
appointing authority at any time without assigning reasons
on notice of three months or on payment of one month's
salary in lieu thereof.
Note: No notice shall be necessary for termination of service
of an employee for want of vacancies.
3.2. The termination of service of employees for want of
vacancies shall be in the order of juniority.
WA NO. 1450 OF 2024 15 2025:KER:38186
3.3. The seniority of an employee in a post shall be
determined by the order of merit in which he was selected
for appointment to that post. Those selected earlier shall be
ranked senior to those selected later.
3.4. In the case of appointment by methods other than
selection, the seniority shall be determined by the date on
which the employee joins duty of the post.
3.5. The appointing authority may, in addition to the benefits
otherwise admissible to an employee, grant such relief as it
deems fit, considering the employee's qualification, age and
experience, if termination of service was due to abolition of
the post in which he was continuing. (underline supplied)
19. Rule 4 of Ext.P11 Service Rules deals with retirement,
which reads thus;
"4. Retirement
4.1. An employee in administrative/technical category shall
retire from service with effect from the afternoon of the last
day of the month in which he attains 58 years of age. For
scientific staff, the retirement age is 60 years.
4.2. An employee with the prior sanction of the appointing
authority, may voluntarily retire from service on completing
twenty years of qualifying service or at the age of fifty,
whichever is earlier.
Note: An employee seeking voluntary retirement shall give
one month notice to the appointing authority informing the
employee's intention to do so.
4.3. An employee shall be retired compulsorily by the
appointing authority.
(i) as a penalty or
WA NO. 1450 OF 2024 16 2025:KER:38186
(ii) on being declared medically unfit for service by a medical
board constituted for the purpose, by the appointing
authority. (underline supplied)
20. Rule 5 of Ext.P11 Service Rules deals with Resignation,
which reads thus;
"5. Resignation
Subject to acceptance by the appointing authority an
employee may resign from service by notice of one month
or on payment of one month's salary in lieu thereof.
Note: At the request of an employee, where resignation is
accepted from a date before the completion of the notice
period, the salary for the period so fallen short in the notice
period shall be recovered from the employee.
5.1. An employee who resigned or who is dismissed from
service shall forfeit his past service. An employee dismissed
from service shall not be eligible for any appointment in the
Council." (underline supplied)
21. The provisions under Ext.P11 Service Rules referred to
hereinbefore would make it explicitly clear that as per Rule 8.9, an
employee of the appellant Institute, as on the date of retirement,
is entitled to leave salary for the leave with salary earned as on
that date, subject to a maximum of 300 days, and for encashment
of the same. As per Note (i) of Rule 8.9, the said benefit shall also
accrue to an employee of the appellant Institute who dies while in
service or whose service is terminated under Rule 3 or who resigns
WA NO. 1450 OF 2024 17 2025:KER:38186
under Rule 5. Therefore, going by the provisions under Ext.P11
Service Rules, an employee of the appellant Institute is entitled to
leave salary for the leave with salary earned, subject to the limit
proscribed in Rule 8.9, and for encashment of the same, only in
the case of retirement from service or death while in service or
termination from service under Rule 3 or resignation under Rule
5. In other words, an incident of retirement from service or death
while in service or termination from service under Rule 3 or
resignation under Rule 5, is an essential condition for claiming
leave salary for the leave with salary earned by an employee of
the appellant Institute, subject to the limit proscribed in Rule 8.9,
and for encashment of the same.
22. We also notice the provisions contained in Rule 3.5 of
Ext.P11 Service Rules, which provides that the appointing
authority may, in addition to the benefits otherwise admissible to
an employee, grant such relief as it deems fit, considering the
employee's qualification, age and experience if termination of
service was due to abolition of the post in which he was continuing.
23. According to the appellant Institute, the 1st respondent-
petitioner, who left the service of the institute on 09.06.2016, after
serving the Institute for more than 20 years, to join as an
WA NO. 1450 OF 2024 18 2025:KER:38186
Associate Professor in the Department of Genomic Science at the
Central University of Kerala, established under the Central
Universities Act, 2009. Since the 1st respondent was relieved from
the service of the appellant Institute, as evidenced by Ext.P1
experience certificate dated 14.06.2016, who enjoyed retention of
lien for 2 years, is not entitled to claim leave salary for the leave
with salary earned by him, subject to the limit proscribed in Rule
8.9, and for encashment of the same. Ext.P12 order dated
03.05.2017 and Ext.P13 order dated 10.06.2019 deal with the
employees of the appellant Institute, in the scientific category, who
were granted the said benefit under Rule 8.9 Part II Section II of
Ext.P11 Service Rules, on their retirement from service, on
attaining the age of superannuation provided in Rule 4.1 of the
said Rules. Therefore, the learned Single Judge went wrong in
concluding that the 1st respondent-petitioner is entitled to invoke
the provisions under Rule 8.9 of Ext.P11 Service Rules to claim
terminal leave surrender to the tune of 300 days.
24. On the other hand, according to the 1st respondent-
petitioner, his case falls under the category 'resignation' from the
service of the appellant Institute for taking up employment an
Associate Professor in the Department of Genomic Science at the
WA NO. 1450 OF 2024 19 2025:KER:38186
Central University of Kerala. In support of the said contention, the
learned counsel relied on Ext.P4 representation dated 27.11.2020
made before the Director of the appellant Institute.
25. As already noticed hereinbefore, the provisions
contained in Rule 5 of Ext.P11 Service Rules, which deals with
resignation. As per Rule 5, subject to acceptance by the appointing
authority an employee may resign from service by notice of one
month or on payment of one month's salary in lieu thereof. As per
Note to Rule 5, at the request of an employee, where resignation
is accepted from a date before the completion of the notice period,
the salary for the period so fallen short in the notice period shall
be recovered from the employee.
26. In the instant case, admittedly, the 1st respondent-
petitioner left the service of the appellant Institute on 09.06.2016,
to take up an appointment as an Associate Professor in the
Department of Genomic Science at the Central University of
Kerala. The said fact is evident from Ext.P1 experience certificate
dated 14.06.2016 issued by the Director of the appellant Institute.
As discernible from Ext.P3 judgment of this Court dated
19.11.2020 in W.P.(C)No.10618 of 2018, the 1st respondent made
a request dated 02.06.2016 [marked Ext.P4 in that writ petition]
WA NO. 1450 OF 2024 20 2025:KER:38186
before the appellant Institute to relieve him from the Institute, to
take up employment as Associate Professor in the Central
University of Kerala. He has also requested to retain the lien for 2
years. The specific stand taken by the appellant Institute, in the
statement dated 19.09.2022 filed in W.P.(C)No.24841 of 2022,
was that vide order No.14/Estt.3/2016 dated 09.06.2016 [marked
Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No.10618 of 2018], the appellant Institute
accorded sanction to relieve the 1st respondent from service,
subject to the condition that his request for retention of the lien
for 2 years could be approved only in consultation with the 2nd
respondent Council, i.e., the Kerala State Council for Science,
Technology and Environment. The 1st respondent has not chosen
to produce a copy of the said order dated 09.06.2016, as an
exhibit in W.P.(C)No.24841 of 2022.
27. After the disposal of W.P.(C)No.10618 of 2018 by
Ext.P3 judgment dated 19.11.2020, the 1st respondent-petitioner
submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 27.11.2020, stating that he
is tendering technical resignation from the post of Scientist E-II at
the appellant Institute, with effect from 09.06.2018, to continue
in the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Genomic
Science at the Central University of Kerala. As already noticed
WA NO. 1450 OF 2024 21 2025:KER:38186
hereinbefore, vide order No.14/Estt.3/2016 dated 09.06.2016
issued by the appellant Institute, sanction was accorded to relieve
the 1st respondent from service to take up employment as an
Associate Professor in the Central University of Kerala. The only
issue remaining for consideration was the request made by the 1st
respondent for retention of the lien for 2 years. As stated in the
statement filed by the appellant Institute in W.P.(C)No.24841 of
2022, in the order dated 09.06.2016, the appellant has made it
clear that the request for retention of the lien for 2 years could be
approved only in consultation with the 2nd respondent Council.
Therefore, we find absolutely no merits in the contention of the 1st
respondent-petitioner that to continue in the post of Associate
Professor at the Central University of Kerala he had tendered
resignation (technical resignation), by submitting Ext.P4
representation dated 27.11.2020 before the appellant Institute.
28. When an incident of retirement from service or death
while in service or termination from service under Rule 3 or
resignation under Rule 5, is an essential condition for claiming
leave salary for the leave with salary earned by an employee of
the appellant Institute, subject to the limit proscribed in Rule 8.9
of Ext.P11 Service Rules, and for encashment of the same, the 1st
WA NO. 1450 OF 2024 22 2025:KER:38186
respondent-petitioner who was relieved from the service of the
appellant Institute on 09.06.2016, to take up employment as an
Associate Professor in the Central University of Kerala, is not
entitled to leave salary for the leave with salary earned by him as
an employee of the appellant Institute and for encashment of the
same. In such circumstances, we find no valid grounds to sustain
the finding of the learned Single Judge that the 1 st respondent-
petitioner is entitled to claim terminal surrender of leave to the
tune of 300 days, invoking the provisions under Rule 8.9 of
Ext.P11 Service Rules.
In the result, this writ appeal is allowed, by setting aside the
impugned judgment dated 04.03.2024 of the learned Single Judge
in W.P.(C)No.24841 of 2022 to the extent of holding that 1 st
respondent-petitioner is entitled to claim terminal surrender of
leave to the tune of 300 days, invoking the provisions under Rule
8.9 of Ext.P11 Service Rules.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
Saap/AV
WA NO. 1450 OF 2024 23 2025:KER:38186
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure STATEMENT FILED IN THE WRIT PETITION BY
THE RESPONDENT
