Wednesday, 06, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

S.V.Perumal vs The Chairman And Managing ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 11657 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 11657 Mad
Judgement Date : 15 June, 2021

Madras High Court
S.V.Perumal vs The Chairman And Managing ... on 15 June, 2021
                                                                        W.P(MD)No.8143 of 2021

                             BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                DATED: 15.06.2021

                                                    CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

                                             W.P(MD)No.8143 of 2021

                 S.V.Perumal                                                 ... Petitioner
                                                       vs.
                 1.The Chairman and Managing Director,
                   SIDCO, Thiru.V.Ka.Industrial Estate,
                   Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

                 2.The Branch Manager,
                   SIDCO, Virudhunagar.                                      ... Respondents


                 PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
                 issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating
                 to the order issued by the first respondent in Rc.No.5288/B-1/2019 and
                 quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to extend the
                 benefit of encashment of unearned leave on private affairs for the period of
                 90 days to the petitioner and to pay monetary benefits to the petitioner with
                 interest at the rate of 18% per annum payable from the date of retirement
                 of the petitioner to till the date of payment of the said monetary benefits
                 based on the scheme of unearned leave on private affairs in accordance
                 with G.O.Ms.No.488, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 12.08.1996 and
                 Government letter No.37568/BPE/2006, dated 28.01.2008 within the time
                 stipulated by this Court.


                 1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                            W.P(MD)No.8143 of 2021

                                   For Petitioner   : Mr.K.Muthumalai
                                   For Respondents : Mr.T.Sakthikumaran


                                                        ORDER

The petitioner filed this Writ Petition to quash the order passed by the

first respondent in Rc.No.5288/B-1/2019 and for a direction to the

respondents to extend the benefit of encashment of unearned leave on

private affairs for the period of 90 days to the petitioner and to pay

monetary benefits to the petitioner with interest in accordance with

G.O.Ms.No.488, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 12.08.1996 and

Government letter No.37568/BPE/2006, dated 28.01.2008.

2.According to the petitioner, after rendering 30 years of service in the

respondents-SIDCO Corporation, he opted for voluntary retirement and

allowed to retire from service on 31.03.2003. At the time of his retirement,

he was paid with Gratuity, Encashment of Earned Leave and Exgratia

payment. The petitioner was not paid Encashment of unearned Leave on

private affairs.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P(MD)No.8143 of 2021

3.Further, according to the petitioner, by G.O.Ms.No.488, Finance

(Pension) Department, dated 12.08.1996, the Government employees, at

the time of retirement, were given the benefit of Encashment of 50% of the

leave on private affairs. Paragraph No.2(a) & (b) of the said Government

Order, reads as follows:-

“2.The Government have decided to accept the long pending demand of various associations of employees to surrender half pay leave on private affairs at the time of retirement and also to grant full leave salary on encashment of the entire earned leave at credit of retiring employees. Accordingly, Government pass the following orders:-

a.At the time of retirement, 50% of the leave on private affairs standing to the credit of the employees upto a maximum of 90 days, be entitled for full leave salary.

The head of office shall draw the leave salary on encashment of leave on private affairs, as in the case of encashment of earned leave; and b.Full leave salary including dearness allowance and other allowances normally admissible while going on leave during service be allowed for the entire period of earned leave encashment of the time of retirement.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P(MD)No.8143 of 2021

4.The said benefits granted to the Government employees were

extended to the employees of all statutory boards and the State public

sector undertakings, vide letter, dated 28.01.2008, by issuing certain

instructions by the Secretary to the Government, Finance (BPE)

Department.

5.According to the petitioner, the instructions given in the letter, dated

28.01.2008, will take effect from the date of issuance of orders. In view of

the instructions in the Government letter, dated 28.01.2008, it is applicable

retrospectively from the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.488, Finance

(Pension) Department, dated 12.08.1996. The petitioner is eligible to get

the encashment of unearned leave on private affairs and the right to get the

encashment of unearned leave on private affairs is an accrued right. Hence,

the petitioner gave a representation, dated 06.08.2019, to the first

respondent and reminder, dated 25.09.2019. The first respondent, by the

impugned order, dated 15.11.2019, stated that the request of the petitioner

for encashment of unearned leave on private affairs cannot be considered.

Challenging the same, the petitioner has come out with the present Writ

Petition.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P(MD)No.8143 of 2021

6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is eligible to get the encashment of unearned leave on private

affairs and the first respondent, ought to have paid the said amount to the

petitioner and relied on the Judgment of this Court in W.A.No.1352 of 2015,

and etc., batch cases, dated 29.06.2016 [The Government of Tamil Nadu,

Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Environment and Forest Department,

Chennai and others Vs. P.Gurusami].

7.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the

learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

8.From the materials available on record, it is seen that earlier to

G.O.Ms.No.488, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 12.08.1996, the

Government servant was entitled to encashment of the entire earned leave

subject to maximum of 240 days standing to the credit of the employees.

There is no provision for encashment of earned leave on private affairs.

Only by G.O.Ms.No.488, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 12.08.1996,

the Government servants were given the benefits of encashment of 50% of

the leave on private affairs standing to their credit upto a maximum of 90

days. The said benefit was given only to the Government employees.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P(MD)No.8143 of 2021

Subsequently, by letter, dated 28.01.2008, the said benefit was extended to

the employees of all State public sector undertakings/Boards. In paragraph

No.4 of the said letter, it is made clear that “these instructions will take

effect from date of issue of orders”. Therefore, the extension of benefits

given to the employees of all statutory boards and public sector

undertakings will be prospective in nature and it has no retrospective effect.

The interpretation given by the petitioner is that the benefits extended by

the letter, dated 28.01.2008, has retrospective effect from the date of

issuance of G.O is contrary to paragraph No.4 of the said letter, dated

28.01.2008. The Judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the

petitioner in W.A.No.1352 of 2015 and etc., batch cases, dated 29.06.2016

is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The present issue was not

an issue before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1352 of 2015 and

etc., batch cases and the Division Bench of this Court did not give any

finding that the letter, dated 28.01.2008, has retrospective effect. When the

petitioner retired on 31.03.2003, on voluntary retirement, the scheme of

encashment of earned leave on private affairs was not in force and

therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the said benefit. Considering the

above materials, this Court is of the view that there is no error in the

impugned order passed by the first respondent.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P(MD)No.8143 of 2021

9.For the above reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

15.06.2021 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ps

Note :

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

To

1.The Chairman and Managing Director, SIDCO, Thiru.V.Ka.Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

2.The Branch Manager, SIDCO, Virudhunagar.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P(MD)No.8143 of 2021

V.M.VELUMANI,J.

ps

W.P(MD)No.8143 of 2021

15.06.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter