Madras High Court
M.A.Madhavan vs The Chairman – Cum Managing ... on 1 November, 2021
W.P.(MD).No.22331 OF 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
W.P.(MD).No.22331 of 2016
M.A.Madhavan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chairman – cum Managing Director,
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Head Office,
Whites Road,
Chennai.
2.The Chief Regional Manager,
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Regional Office,
West Veli Street,
Madurai.
3.The Senior Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Seethalakshmi Complex,
Thirunagar,
Madurai-625 006. ... Respondents
Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for
the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating
to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings in
Ref.No.090401/PER.MKTG/91/16-17 dated 15.11.2016 and quash the same as
illegal and consequently directing the respondents to settle the encashment of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/5
W.P.(MD).No.22331 OF 2016
earned leave with applicable interest to the petitioner within a time frame fixed
by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.Pradeep
for Mr.B.Saravanan
For Respondents : Mr.N.Dilipkumar
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to quash the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his
proceedings in Ref.No.090401/PER.MKTG/91/16-17 dated 15.11.2016 and to
direct the respondents to settle the encashment of earned leave with applicable
interest to the petitioner.
2.The petitioner was appointed as an Inspector in the respondent
Insurance Company. The petitioner was posted in the third respondent Branch
in the year 1991. While the petitioner was in service, an enquiry was conducted
against him on the allegation that the petitioner issued an anti-dated cover note.
Following the charge sheet and the enquiry, the punishment was imposed on the
petitioner by denying 10 increments. Later, the case was referred to CBI for
investigation. After investigation, a trial was conducted for the offences under
Sections 420, 468 r/w. 471 and 477A of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is also admitted that the petitioner was
dismissed from service following the verdict of the Criminal Court. By the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.22331 OF 2016
impugned order, the request of the petitioner for encashment of earned leave
was declined on the ground that the petitioner, who has been dismissed from
service, is not entitled for encashment of earned leave.
3.The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was denied
earned leave encashment. The petitioner, who was terminated from service, is
not entitled to all the terminal benefits, unless it is otherwise provided by
Service Rules.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of The State rep. by
the Principal Secretary and others -vs- M.Vijayaram, dated 06.09.2019,
wherein this Court has held that a person, who was dismissed from service is
entitled to get earned leave encashment. However, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents relied upon the judgment of Full Bench of Punjab
and Haryana High Court, in the case of Punjab State Civil Supplies
Corporation Ltd., & Others -vs- Pyare Lal, reported in AIR 2014 Punjab &
Haryana 147. wherein it is held that no benefit of the said service which stood
forfeited can be extended to an employee in any manner unless an exception is
made out by Government or by Service Rules. The Central Government has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.22331 OF 2016
framed a scheme to regulate termination, superannuation vide General
Insurance (Termination, Superannuation and Retirement of Officers and
Development Staff) Scheme, 1976. Paragraph 4 of the scheme deals with
superannuation and retirement. Sub-paragraph 5 of paragraph 4 provide for
payment of cash equivalent of leave salary in respect of the period of earned
leave at his credit as on the date of retirement. However, as per proviso to sub-
paragraph 5 of paragraph 4 of the Scheme, a person dismissed from service in
accordance with Service Rules is not entitled to the benefit of sub-Paragraph 5
of Para 4. Following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Full Bench of
Punjab and Haryana High Court made a distinction that if the right to withhold
leave encashment is part of a statutory rule, or law then the benefit of leave
encashment cannot be claimed as a component earned by the employee.
5.Since withholding earned leave encashment is part of the statutory
rules in this case, this Court is unable to find any other valid point to interfere
with the order passed by the respondents. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is
dismissed. No costs.
01.11.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet: yes / No
Ns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.22331 OF 2016
S.S. SUNDAR, J.,
Ns
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.
W.P.(MD).No.22331 of 2016
01.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
