Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hans Raj Kapoor vs The Vice Chancellor,Haryana ... on 25 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056644
CM-9140-CWP-2022 in/& -1- 2024:PHHC:056644
CWP-2236-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
208 CM-9140-CWP-2022 in/&
CWP-2236-2017
Date of Decision :25.04.2024
Hans Raj Kapoor ...Petitioner
Versus
Vice Chancellor, Haryana Agricultural
University, Hisar and another ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Harshit Joon, Advocate for
Mr. Manvender Rathee, Advocate for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
CM-9140-CWP-2022
Present application has been filed for recalling the order dated
16.05.2022 passed by this Court by which, the main writ petition was
dismissed for non-prosecution.
Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which
are duly supported by an affidavit, application is allowed. Order dated
16.05.2022 passed by this Court is recalled and the main writ petition is
ordered to be restored to its original number and status and is taken up for
hearing today itself.
CWP-2236-2017
In the present petition, challenge is to order dated 05.10.2016
(Annexure P/6) by which, the prayer of petitioner for the grant of pension,
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056644
CM-9140-CWP-2022 in/& -2- 2024:PHHC:056644
CWP-2236-2017
Gratuity and leave encashment and other benefits after his
dismissal/removal from service, was rejected by the respondents.
2. As per the facts mentioned in the present case, the petitioner
was removed from service vide order dated 15.01.2003 (Annexure P/1) after
holding due departmental enquiry into the allegations alleged against the
petitioner and even appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order
dated 14.11.2005. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing
CWP-7340-2004, which writ petition was withdrawn vide order dated
07.05.2004 and, thereafter, order of removal from service was challenged by
the petitioner by way of filing a civil suit and the lower Court vide order
dated 27.08.2013 rejected the said civil suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of the
CPC.
3. Thereafter, an appeal filed by the petitioner against the said
order dated 27.08.2013 was also dismissed on 17.05.2016 (Annexure P/3)
but with liberty that in case petitioner is entitled for pensionary benefits, he
can claim the said benefit from the concerned department.
4. In the present petition, petitioner is claiming that he is entitled
for the grant of leave encashment and reliance is being placed upon the
judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-27383-2013 titled
as Dhir Chand vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 19.11.2018.
5. No one appears on behalf of the respondents.
6. The only claim of the petitioner in the present petition is as to
whether the petitioner is entitled for the grant of leave encashment despite
the fact that he was removed from service for which, reliance is being placed
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056644
CM-9140-CWP-2022 in/& -3- 2024:PHHC:056644
CWP-2236-2017
upon in the case of Dhir Chand (supra).
7. It may be noticed that after considering the judgment in Dhir
Chand (supra), this Court while passing order in CWP-3843-2019 titled as,
Ram Kumar Ranga vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on
15.07.2019, has held that the leave encashment is admissible only at the
time of retirement and not at any time before attaining the age of
superannuation. It has been further held that an employee, who has been
removed from service, is not entitled for the grant of leave encashment.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to
distinguish that the judgment in the case of Ram Kumar Ranga (supra) is
not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
9. It may be noticed that a Coordiante Bench of this Court which
passed the order in Dhir Chand (supra) has also dismissed the CWP-9742-
2019 titled as Harbans Lal vs. State of Punjab, decided on 21.08.2019,
placing reliance upon the case of Ram Kumar Ranga (supra) hence,
keeping in view the settled principle of law settled by this Court in Ram
Kumar Ranga (supra), which has been passed after considering the
judgment passed in Dhir Chand (supra), no benefit of the said judgment
can be extended to the petitioner qua the grant of leave encashment.
10. No other argument has been raised.
11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances recorded
hereinbefore, present petition is dismissed.
April 25, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
