Madras High Court
M. Anbazhagan vs The District Collector on 29 June, 2022
W.P.No.3738 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.3738 of 2020
M. Anbazhagan ... Petitioner
// Vs //
1. The District Collector,
Salem District,
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Attur, Salem. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to
disburse the eligible salary for the duty period from 01.01.1999 to
14.01.1999 and 01.11.2003 to 07.11.2003 and the subsistence allowance for
the period 15.01.1999 to 16.08.1999 and 08.11.2003 to 11.12.2003, Special
G.P.F., earned leave and unearned leave encashments and gratuity accrued to
the petitioner while the petitioner was in service with eligible interest as
requested by the petitioner in representation dated 04.11.2019 and
16.11.2019.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3738 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr. A. Thiyagarajan
For Respondents : Mr. T.Chezhiyan,
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The prayer sought by the petitioner in this petition is to disburse the
Special G.P.F., Earned Leave and Un-Earned Leave encashments and gratuity
to the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was working as
Village Administrative Officer and he was dismissed from service on
11.12.2003. Thereafter, the petitioner attained superannuation on
31.05.2016. Though the petitioner made representations to the authorities
concerned for monetary benefits of encashment of Earned Leave and Un-
Earned Leave, Gratuity amount, the same has not been considered so far.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3738 of 2020
4. As per Rule 86(a)(i) of the Fundamental Rules, the petitioner is
entitled for the monitory benefits. But, the respondent has not settled the
amount. In an identical circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court has
elaborately considered a similar issue in the case of Secretary to
Government, Revenue Department and others /vs/ K. Palaniyandi
(W.A.(MD)Nos.105 of 2019 dated 31.07.2019), wherein, the Division
Bench in extenso has adverted to various decisions on the subject matter and
ultimately confirmed the relief granted by the learned Single Judge of this
Court. In fact, the Division Bench, in Paragraph No.23, has referred to the
observation of the earlier Division Bench and ultimately confirmed the order
passed by the learned Single Judge. Paragraph Nos.23 and 24 of the Division
Bench judgment are extracted hereunder:
“23.In a recent decision of the Division Bench reported in
MANU/TN/3139/2019:2019 Writ L.R.825(State of
Tamil nadu vs. Mahalingam), the same issue was
considered and it has been observed at Paragraph No.5 as
follows:
“5.Before proceeding further, it would be necessary to
examine the nature and legal basis for payment of
‘earned leave’ to Government Servants. Rules 7 to 12 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3738 of 2020
the Tamil Nadu Leave Rules, 1933, contain the statutory
provisions for earned leave. It could be seen from the
aforesaid provisions that the leave account of every
permanent Government Servant shall be credited with
earned leave in advance in two instalments of fifteen days
each o the first day of January and first day of July every
year. The leave at the credit of a Government Servant at
the close of the previous half year shall be carried
forward to the next half year, subject to the condition that
the leave so carried forward plus the credit for the half
year do not exceed the maximum limit of 240 days. The
said rules further provide that if the leave standing to the
credit of the Government Servant is not taken within a
year as per the Service Rules, it may be encashed or
accumulated. The accumulated leave may be availed by
the Government Servant during his tenure of service or at
the time of retirement or leaving the employment which
obviously means that the right of the Government
Servant to receive the same stands vested with him during
that period itself which he can utilize at anytime he
chooses. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State
of Jharkhand vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava
(MANU/SC/0801/2013: (2013) 12 SCC 210) has made
it abundantly clear that leave encashment cannot be taken
away without any statutory provision. In short, ‘earned
leave’ which is created by statute, partakes the character
of an emolument protected as a right to property of the
concerned Government Servant under Article 300-A of
the Constitution. It has been provided in Rule 86(a)(i) of
the Fundamental Rules that the Competent Authority
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3738 of 2020
shall suo motu draw and disburse the cash benefits and
encashment of the earned leave at the credit of the
Government Servant without formal sanction orders on
the date of retirement or the date of termination of
extension of service, as the case may be. The removal of
a Government Servant from service as a measure of
punishment of conclusion of disciplinary proceedings
after extending his service on attaining the age of
superannuation for that purpose, would naturally amount
to ‘termination of extension of service’, and in terms of
that rule, the Competent Authority on that date ought to
have suo motu disbursed the cash benefit and
encashment of earned leave, if the same had not been
availed by the petitioner earlier. The Second Respondent
has wrongfully refused to pay the earned leave to the
petitioner, which he was legitimately entitled to receive,
even on that date.
24.Therefore, we find the present issue is also certainly
similar to the one in the above cases and thus, we find
that the order of the Writ Court in granting the relief to
the writ petitioner need not be interfered with.”
5. Therefore, in the light of the above, the 2nd respondent is directed to
consider the the representations of the petitioner dated 04.11.2019 and
16.11.2019 and pass appropriate orders for sanctioning the encashment of
leave salary, i.e., Earned Leave, Un-Earned Leave and also the Special G.P.F.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3738 of 2020
as early as possible, preferably, within a period of twelve weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is open to the petitioner to make a
fresh representation to the 2nd respondent seeking for the subsistence
allowance during the period of suspension.
6. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
29.06.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
mrp
To
1. The District Collector,
Salem District,
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Attur, Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3738 of 2020
D.KRISHNAKUMAR. J
mrp
W.P.No.3738 of 2020
29.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
