Uttarakhand High Court
2 August vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 12 August, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:7072-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Service Bench No.196 of 2015
12 August, 2025
B.C. Pandey --Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Ayush Aggarwal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Akhil Kumar Sah, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Susheel Vashisht, learned Standing Counsel for the State/ respondent
no.1
Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sameer Rawat,
Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
(Per: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was employed as In-Charge Chief
Chemist in Kichha Sugar Company Limited, while he
tendered his resignation. The resignation was accepted
by competent authority vide order dated 15.07.2008.
Thereafter, petitioner was released all terminal dues
except leave encashment. Thus feeling aggrieved, he
filed Claim Petition No.28/NB/SB/2010 and the same
was dismissed by Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal
vide judgment dated 17.12.2014 by holding that as per
Statutory Rules, upon resignation, an employee is not
entitled to benefit of leave encashment. Thus feeling
aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court
challenging judgment passed by the learned Tribunal.
2025:UHC:7072-DB
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that
learned Tribunal erred by relying upon the circular
issued by Joint Managing Director of Kichha Sugar
Company Limited and the circular has been wrongly
referred as Rules. He further submits that other
similarly situated person Dr. N.K. Kapoor, who also
resigned from service on 21.12.2002 at the age of 48
years was given leave encashment.
3. As regards to first submission, we have
perused the impugned judgment. The learned Tribunal
has referred to Rule 59(5) of U.P. State Sugar
Corporation General Service Rules, 1988. Rule 59 of
the said Rules is extracted below:-
"(1) Only earned leave is encashable, and no other
kind of leave is en cashable.
(2) Encashment will be allowed to an employee
only once in a calendar year.
(3) Employees drawing basic pay upto Rs 2900/-
will be entitled to en-cashment of 30 days
earned leave once in a calendar year;
Provided that earned leave at the credit
of the employee is not less than 90 days at the
time of encashment.
(4) Employees drawing basic pay more than Rs.
2900/- will be entitled to encashment of 15
days earned leave once in a calendar year;
provided that earned leave at the credit of the
employee is not less than 75 days at the time
of encashment.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub rule
(2) & (3), where an employee retires from the
services of the Corporation he shall be paid
salary for the number of days for which earned
leave is due to him on his retirement.
No encashment of balance earned leave
to an employee will be admissible where the
services of an employee are terminated or
where an employee terminates the
employment of the Corporation.
2025:UHC:7072-DB
(6) The authority competent to sanction earned
leave to the concerning employee shall be
competent to issue suo moto order sanctioning
encashment of earned leave under the
provisions of sub-rule (5).
(7) The earned leave standing at the credit of an
employee dying while in service will be
encashed and paid to his nominee, if any,
failing which to his/her legal heirs at the rate of
pay last drawn by the deceased while in
service.
(8) No deductions, other than in-come-tax will be
made from the amount payable to an employee
on encashment of leave. In case of retirement,
retrenchment, termination or death, however,
the Corporation's dues shall be recovered from
the amount of encashment.
(9) For the purposes of this rule "salary" shall be
deemed to mean basic pay and dearness
allowance, if admissible and shall not include
house rent allowance or any other type of
allowance."
4. Careful perusal of Rule 59(5) of the aforesaid
Rules reveals that encashment of balance earned
leaves to an employee shall not be admissible where
service of such employee is either terminated by
employer or employee himself terminates his
employment with the Corporation.
5. The only mode of termination of employment
by an employee would be by way of resignation,
whereas employer can terminate employment by
imposing different kinds of punishment and also by
compulsorily retiring an employee.
6. Thus, the view taken by learned Tribunal that
upon resignation, an employee forfeits rights to get
leave encashment cannot be faulted. Thus, there is no
scope for interference with the impugned judgment.
2025:UHC:7072-DB
7. As regards to second submission that one
similarly situated person, namely, Dr. N.K. Kapoor was
given leave encashment even after his resignation from
service, we permit petitioner to make representation. If
such representation claiming parity with Dr. N.K.
Kapoor is made by the petitioner, the same shall be
dealt with as per law by Executive Director, Kichha
Sugar Company Limited, within a period of 10 weeks
from the date of presentation of certified copy of this
order.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
12.08.2025
SS
SUKHBANT Digitally signed by SUKHBANT SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129a8a6
SINGH
380d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2B7D7
2C42261361AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH
Date: 2025.08.13 11:09:35 +05'30'
