Madras High Court
K.Bhaskar Rao vs The Senior General Manager on 26 August, 2025
W.P.No.37675 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 08.08.2025
Pronounced on 26.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.P.No.37675 of 2024
and
W.M.P.No.40737 of 2024
K.Bhaskar Rao ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Senior General Manager,
Heavy Vehicles Factory,
HVF Road,
Avadi, Chennai – 600054.
2. The Work Manager (Admin),
Heavy Vehicles Factory,
HVF Road,
Avadi, Chennai – 600054. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in
impugned order in Proceedings No.00093/ESTT/DG/KBR/2021 dated
16.12.2021 issued by the second respondent and quash the same, and
consequentially direct the first respondent to settle the entire dues to the
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:58:02 pm )
W.P.No.37675 of 2024
petitioner by calculating the earned leave entitlement as 300 days in the
present service along with the interest at the rate of 12% from the date of
superannuation i.e. 30.04.2020 till the date of realization of the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Parthiban
For Respondents : Mr.Venkateswamy Babu
Senior Panel Counsel
*****
ORDER
The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned
order dated 16.12.2021 issued by the second respondent.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner served in the Indian Air Force for a period of 21 years and was
discharged from service on 31.08.1999. After the said service, the petitioner
was again appointed in the first respondent factory under the Ex-servicemen
category on 16.10.2004. He would further submit that after having served for
several years in the first respondent factory with merit, he retired on
30.04.2020 on attaining the age of superannuation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:58:02 pm )
2.1. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that according
to the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as
'the CCS Rules' for short), a person who retires is eligible for cash equivalent
in respect of earned leave at his credit on the date of termination of re-
employment, subject to a maximum of 300 days. The sum and substance of
the learned counsel for the petitioner's contention is that he ought to have
been granted cash equivalence at the time of his retirement before the first
respondent in respect of earned leave for 300 days, whereas the petitioner
was granted only cash equivalent for 35 days, which is in contravention of
Rule 39(6)(a)(iii) of the CCS Rules. Hence, prayed to quash the impugned
order.
3. The said contention was stoutly objected by the learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondents, and would submit that according to
Rule 39(6)(a)(iii) of the CCS Rules, the employee was granted leave
encashment upto a maximum of 300 days, including the period for which
encashment was allowed at the time of retirement in his previous service,
viz., the Indian Air Force. However, taking into consideration the CCS
Rules, the petitioner's eligibility for cash equivalence for 35 days was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:58:02 pm )
allowed, as the petitioner had already availed himself of 265 days of earned
leave when he was serving in the Indian Air Force. Therefore, he would
contend that the rejection order is well within the merits. In this connection,
the learned Standing Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in State of Sikkim and Others Vs. Dr. Mool Raj
Kotwal, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 888.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.
5. The short point to be considered in the present writ petition is,
Whether the petitioner is entitled to 300 days of earned leave in his second
service, viz., before the first respondent, after being discharged from the
Indian Air Force. In this connection, it is appropriate to extract Rule
39(6)(a)(iii) of the CCS Rules, which reads as follows:-
“39. Leave/Cash payment in lieu of leave beyond
the date of retirement, compulsory retirement or quitting
of service.
....
(iii) A Government servant, who is re-employed after
retirement may, on termination of his re-employment, be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:58:02 pm )
granted, suo motu, by an authority competent to grant
leave, cash equivalent in respect of both earned leave and
half pay leave at his credit on the date of termination of re-
employment subject to a maximum of 300 days including
the period for which encashment was allowed at the time of
retirement and the cash equivalent payable shall be the
same as in sub-rule (2) of Rule 39.”
While reading the above Rule, the word 're-employed' used prior to the word
'after retirement', which is the catch word and denotes a significant
difference.
6. Here, the petitioner was re-employed in the first respondent's
concern after his retirement from his Indian Air Force service. In such an
event, according to this Rule, the Government servant is entitled to cash
equivalent in the termination of re-employment post, viz., in the first
respondent's concern, is subject to the maximum of 300 days, including the
period for which encashment was allowed at the time of his retirement in his
first service. Therefore, a harmonious reading of the above rule would clearly
stipulate that the total entitlement of cash equivalent is 300 days, which
includes his service by way of re-employment as well as his service in the
Indian Air Force. As per Rule 39(6)(a)(iii) of the CCS Rules, it is clearly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:58:02 pm )
mandated that the 300 days should include the period for which encashment
was allowed at the time of his first retirement.
7. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has already
availed himself of 265 days in his Indian Air Force service. Therefore, the
first respondent, out of a total of 300 days, deducted 265 days and allowed
35 days. In which, this Court absolutely finds no infirmity.
8. At this juncture, this Court would like to rely upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dr. Mool Raj Kotwal's case (cited
supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt the interpretation of the
leave encashment provisions. In this regard, it is appropriate to extract
paragraphs 27 and 28, which read as follows:-
“27. Interpreting leave encashment provisions goes
beyond financial compensation and connects to broader
legal principles of dignity and welfare during service.
However, such interpretations must carefully balance the
interests of both employees and the financial stability of the
organization, especially when public exchequer is involved.
Courts must tread carefully to prevent employees from
claiming leave encashment multiple times for the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:58:02 pm )
accrual, which could lead to unjust enrichment and may go
against the public interest of largesse.
28. Therefore, while leave encashment ensures that
extraordinary work ethic of an employee is rewarded, it
must be applied in a way that upholds both employee rights
and institutional sustainability. Naturally, courts must
interpret leave encashment rules and statutes in a manner
that prevents undue financial burden on employers while
ensuring that employees receive what they are lawfully
entitled to.
According to the above ratio, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has clearly
held that while interpreting the leave encashment provisions, a balance
should be struck between the interests of the employee and the financial
stability of the organization.
9. In the case in hand, the Rule, on its harmonious reading, would give
a categorical meaning that the total cash equivalence for earned leave is for
300 days, and that 300 days includes whatever earned leave he has already
been allowed at the time of his first retirement. But the learned counsel for
the petitioner, by relying on Rule 34 of the CCS Rules, would submit that
when a person is re-employed after retirement, then the said Rules shall
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:58:02 pm )
apply as if he had entered Government service for the first time on the date
of his re-employment. This Court absolutely cannot have any grievance with
Rule 34.
10. But the fact remains that according to Rule 39, when it specifies
that the cash equivalence should be paid for 300 days, which includes the
earned leave that has already been availed of by the Government employee
during his Indian Air Force service, and when the above Rule is interpreted
in accordance with the judgment of Dr. Mool Raj Kotwal's case (cited
supra), Rule 34 does not make any difference in the reasoning given by the
second respondent in the impugned order. Therefore, this Court absolutely
does not find any merit in the present writ petition.
11. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
26.08.2025
kv
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order /Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:58:02 pm )
To
1. The Chief General Manager,
Heavy Vehicles Factory,
HVF Road,
Avadi, Chennai – 600054.
2. The Joint Work Manager (SG)/NT(ESST),
Heavy Vehicles Factory,
HVF Road,
Avadi, Chennai – 600054.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:58:02 pm )
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
kv
Pre-Delivery Order in
26.08.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:58:02 pm )
