Madras High Court
The Management Of vs N.Pasupathy ....1St on 26 September, 2024
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
W.A(MD).No.1587 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date : 26.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
W.A.(MD)No.1587 of 2018
and
C.M.P(MD)No.11354 of 2018
The Management of
The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited,
Rep. By its Managing Director,
Bye Pass Road,
Madurai – 16. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1. N.Pasupathy ....1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its, Principal Secretary to Government,
Transport Department and Chairman of
Board of Directors of State Transport Undertaking,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-9. ...2nd Respondent/1st Respondent
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD).No.1587 of 2018
PRAYER : Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.18731 of 2016, dated
02.12.2016.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Ramachandran Pradeep
For Respondent : Mr.A.Rahul – for R1
Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar – for R2
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
The Writ Appeal had been filed by the respondents in
W.P.(MD)No.18731 of 2016 questioning the order of the learned Single
Judge, dated 02.12.2016, by which order, the learned Single Judge had
allowed the writ petition along with a batch of writ petitions.
2. All the writ petitions had been filed in the nature of
Mandamus seeking a direction against the appellants herein to extend the
benefit of surrender and encashment of unearned leave on the private
affairs for the period of 90 days to the writ petitioner and to pay
monetary benefits with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellants herein questioned the said order in other W.A.(MD)Nos.939
to 944 of 2017 and 326 of 2018 which had come up for consideration
before the Division Bench of this Court and by judgment, dated
27.03.2018, the Division Bench had allowed the Writ Appeals.
3. It had been observed by the Division Bench that State
Public Sector undertaking like the appellant herein, cannot extend the
benefit for grant of encashment of unearned leave on private affairs. In
this connection, specifically G.O.(Ms)No.488 Finance (Pension
Department), dated 12.08.1996 had been passed, by which, the
employees of the statutory bodies of State Government undertaking were
not granted the said benefits. But subsequently, a clarificatory letter was
issued on 28.01.2008. The Division Bench in the earlier occasion in the
aforementioned writ appeals has observed as follows :
“7. It is an admitted fact that G.O.Ms.No.488,
Finance (Pension) Department, dated 12.08.1996
issued by the State Government did not extend the
benefit of encashment of unearned leave on private
affairs at the time of retirement to the State
Government undertakings or statutory bodies etc and
such benefit was extended to the Government servants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and the maximum period was stipulated as 90 days.
Thus, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.488, Finance (Pension)
Department, dated 12.08.1996, the respondents/writ
petitioners cannot make a claim for the encashment of
the unearned leave on private affairs.
8.The problem arose on account of a letter,
dated 28.01.2008. Admittedly, the Government order
cannot superseded by a Government letter, which has
been issued by the Secretary of the Government. At the
best, it is advisory and not mandatory in which, a
clarification was issued that the scheme of encashment
of unearned leave on private affairs ordered in
G.O.Ms.No.488, Finance (Pension) Department, dated
12.08.1996 may also be extended of employees of
statutory bodies and the State Government
undertakings. It appears that a thorough exercise was
not undertaken by the Finance Department before
issuing the Clarificatory Letter, dated 28.01.2008.
Subsequently, it appears that the matter was brought
to the knowledge of the Finance Department, the
Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu and
appropriate clarification was issued by the
Government on 15.02.2012, whereby, making it clear
that if a State Public sector undertaking has such a
provision in their Regulations and Service Rules, they
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
may continue to do so. In the said Government letter,
in paragraph No.3, the Government specifically took
note of the fact that few State Public Sector
Undertakings have extended the benefit of encashment
of Unearned Leave on Private Affairs to their
employees, even though there was no provision in
their services rules for extension of such benefit and
seek later orders for ratification from the Government.
That apart, in paragraph No.4(ii), the Government
had specifically clarified that the scheme should not
be extended to the employees of State Public Sector
Undertakings, whose Service Rules did not contain the
provision for encashment of unearned Leave on
private affairs.
9. .............
10. ............
11.As noticed above, there is a separate Service
Rule for the employees of the appellants/Transport
Corporation. Annexure-II of the common Service
Rules deals with Unearned Leave and on perusal of
the said Rules, we find that there is no such Leave
Rule called as unearned leave on private affairs. Thus,
unless and until, such a leave is contemplated under
the Service Rule, the question of encashment does not
arise. It is to be noted that all the respondents/writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioners have all served in the appellants/Transport
Corporation and were bound by the Service Rules
framed by the Corporation. Therefore, at this distant
point of time, after they attained the age of
superannuation, the question of claiming such a
benefit does not arise.”
4. It is thus clear that specifically for the Transport
Corporation, there is no such leave rule called unearned leave on private
affairs. In view of the said fact, we are unable to accept the view of the
learned Single Judge.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands allowed. The order
of the learned Single Judge is therefore, set aside and the writ petition is
dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
(C.V.K., J.) (R.P., J.)
26.09.2024
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
RM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
The Principal Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Transport Department and Chairman of
Board of Directors of State Transport Undertaking,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-9.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
RM
26.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
