Madras High Court
M.Premkumar vs The General Manager on 12 December, 2022
W.P.(MD)No.6654 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.12.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.(MD)No.6654 of 2020
M.Premkumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The General Manager,
Personal Administrative Department (Sup)
Settlement Section,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Central Office,
Chennai.
2. The General Manager,
HRMD (Gratuity),
Indian Overseas Bank,
Central Office,
763, Anna Salai,
Chennai.
3. The Chief Manager,
Salary Section,
Central Office,
Chennai. ... Respondents
_________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6654 of 2020
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to
consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.08.2019 for disbursement
of the Leave Encashment with interest from the date of superannuation
(31.10.2014), in the light of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.
1484 of 2016 dated 29.01.2016 and W.P(MD)No.4975 of 2018 dated
08.03.2018, within a time frame as stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr. C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar
For Respondents : Mr. N.Dilip Kumar
Standing Counsel
ORDER
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner filed a writ petition for disbursement of leave encashment with
interest from the date of dismissal from service i.e., on 31.10.2014 in the
light of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.1484 of 2016 dated
29.01.2016 and W.P.(MD) No.4975 of 2018 dated 08.03.2018 for which, he
made a representation, dated 17.08.2019, but no order was passed and
hence, the present writ petition is filed with the aforesaid prayer.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6654 of 2020
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court
may issue a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's
representation and pass appropriate orders within the time limit. The learned
counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the issue that arises in the
present writ petition, is only for encashment of leave.
3. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents submitted that in the present case, the petitioner was dismissed
from service on 31.01.2014 and immediately after dismissal of the petitioner
as per Rule 38, he is not entitled for encashment of leave and the very same
issue was settled by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.22331 of 2016 dated
01.11.2021. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. The issue that arises in this writ petition is no longer res
integra and the same was decided by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.22331 of
2016 dated 01.11.2021, wherein this Court held that as per the proviso to
paragraph No.4 of the scheme, a person dismissed from service in
accordance with Service Rules is not entitled to the benefit of sub paragraph
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6654 of 2020
5 of Paragraph 4. As per Rule 38, all leave to the credit of the officer shall
be lapsed on resignation, retirement, death, discharge, dismissal of
termination from service.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
6. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. The present writ
petition is filed for encashment of leave immediately after the dismissal of
service on 31.01.2014. The relevant provision of the Indian Overseas Bank
(Officers') Service Regulations, 1979, are as follows :
"Lapse of Leave : Save as provided below,
all leave to the credit of an Officer shall lapse on
resignation, retirement, death, discharge, dismissal or
termination.
Provided that where an Officer retires from
the Bank's services he shall be eligible to be paid a
sum equivalent to the emoluments of any period, not
exceeding 240 days of privilege leave that he had
accumulated
Provided further that where an Officer dies
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6654 of 2020
while in service, there shall be payable to his legal
representatives, a sum equivalent to the emoluments
for the period not exceeding 240 days of privilege
leave to his credit as on the date of his death
Provided also that where an Officer leaves or
discontinues his services by resignation on or after the
1st Day of April 2001, after giving due notice under
sub-regulation (2) of regulation 20, he may be paid a
sum equivalent to the emoluments in respect of
privilege leave to the extent of half of such leave to his
credit on the date of cessation of service, subject to a
maximum of 120 days."
7. The relevant portion in the order, dated 01.11.2021 passed in
W.P.(MD) No.22331 of 2016, is as follows:
"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
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6654 of 2020
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 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
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6654 of 2020
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.
8. In view of the above said provision and in view of the law laid
down by this Court, the petitioner being a dismissed employee, is not
entitled to the benefit of leave encashment. Hence, the prayer sought for in
this writ petition cannot be granted.
9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
12.12.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
RM
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6654 of 2020
To
1. The General Manager,
Personal Administrative Department (Sup)
Settlement Section,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Central Office,
Chennai.
2. The General Manager,
HRMD (Gratuity),
Indian Overseas Bank,
Central Office,
763, Anna Salai,
Chennai.
3. The Chief Manager,
Salary Section,
Central Office,
Chennai.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6654 of 2020
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
RM
W.P.(MD)No.6654 of 2020
12.12.2022
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
