Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jharkhand High Court: Dr S.N. Pathak, J., allowed the present petition, directing the respondents to make payment of the entire retiral benefits to the petitioner within 10 days.

The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for payment of his retiral dues i.e. pension, gratuity, arrears of pension and leave encashment and other benefits.

The facts of the case were that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer under Rural Works Department on 28-03-1979 in the erstwhile State of Bihar. It is the case of the petitioner that he was denied the salary for several months and on several occasions without any rhyme and reason. The petitioner after his cadre allocation to the State of Jharkhand, superannuated from the services on 31-07-2011 from Rural Works Department, Work Division, Garhwa. The petitioner after superannuation in 2011, filed several representations for payment of retiral benefits but the respondents have not paid any heed to the same, therefore, the present petition.

Saibal Mitra, the counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that though the petitioner superannuated in the year 2011, he has not received a single farthing under the head of retiral benefits.

The High Court directed the Treasury Officer to immediately make payment of the entire retiral benefits to the petitioner within a period of 10 days since entire amount under the heads of retiral benefits have been sanctioned only a month’s back after eight years of the retirement. The Court also held that the Petitioner is entitled to retiral benefits along with 12% statutory interest. Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment passed in case of Uma Agrawal v. State of U.P., (1999) 3 SCC 438 wherein it is settled principle of law that retiral benefits are not bounty to be given to the employees after retirement. Rather, it is the right of the employees to get retiral benefits.[Sukhram Prasad Mani v. State of Jharkhand, 2019 SCC OnLine Jhar 1137, decided on 20-08-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: The Bench of Nilu Agrawal, J. allowed a civil writ petition directing payment of leave encashment to a clerk of a minority school.

Petitioner herein, who retired from a minority school from the post of clerk, filed the instant writ application praying for payment of unutilised earned leave/ leave encashment.

The Court placed reliance on the judgment in Charley Lazarus v. State of Bihar, 2015 SCC OnLine Pat 5268, where payment of leave encashment was allowed to teaching as well as non-teaching staff as per entitlement of the employee. The said order was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 16-03-2017 in LPA No. 1856 of 2016.

At this point, learned counsel appearing for the State Mr Sanjay Kumar submitted that a Special Leave Petition was pending against the judgment of Division Bench in LPA No. 1856 of 2016.

The Court noted that the aforesaid SLP had been filed in March, 2018 but it neither had it been numbered as yet, nor the special leave to appeal had yet been granted. In view thereof, considering the nature of the claim made by the petitioner, the writ application was allowed in terms of the order passed in Charley Lazarus v. State of Bihar, 2015 SCC OnLine Pat 5268, affirmed by Division Bench in LPA No. 1856 of 2016. Thus, the District Education Officer was directed to pay the petitioner as per his entitlement within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.[Md. Mohsin v. State of Bihar, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 377, Order dated 08-03-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gauhati High Court: The Bench of Manojit Bhuyan, J. disposed of a writ petition filed for leave encashment benefit with direction to the respondent authority to make an assessment of the number of days standing at the credit of the petitioner towards leave encashment benefits.

Petitioner prayed for a direction to the respondent authority to make a cash payment in lieu of unutilized earned leave standing at his credit until the date of his retirement on superannuation. It was stated that as per rules of the Gauhati University, he was entitled to leave encashment of the unutilized earned leave for 300 days.

The Court held that leave encashment benefit could be extended only for the maximum permissible 300 days. What would be the cash benefit for the number of days of unutilized earned leave must require an evaluation/calculation by the authorities concerned. It cannot be automatically for 300 days altogether. [Bishnu Chakraborty v. Gauhati University, 2019 SCC OnLine Gau 868, Order dated 18-02-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Goverdhan Bardhar and Mohammad Rafiq, JJ., upheld the appeal directed against the order passed by the Single Judge questioning the order by which respondents were directed to comply with the mandate of Regulation 13.1 of the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2010 and to extend the benefit of leave encashment and salary of summer vacations.

The facts of the case are that the appellants wanted actual benefits for leave encashment and salary of summer vacations.  This was rejected by the respondents. The counsel for the appellants sought to argue that the appellants were not at fault and therefore they should not be penalised or deprived of the actual benefits for the period of 2011 to 2014, as they timely approached the Court in 2011 and their writ petitions were disposed of with direction to the respondents to decide their representations.

The High Court ordered to compute the actual benefits and make payment thereof. [Uttam Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 2, decided on 03-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Shekher Dhawan, J., dealt with a writ petition for the release of retiral benefits i.e. leave encashment to the petitioner. 

Petitioner had filed the instant petition for the release of leave encashment as a retiral benefit. Facts of the case were that a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner after which he got retired from the service. Petitioner contended that an employee like him, if had already retired, only his gratuity could have been withheld but not other retiral benefits in accordance with the case of Punjab State Civil Supplies Corpn. Limited v. Pyare Lal, 2014 SCC OnLine P&H 15012.

High Court viewed that controversy was restricted to petitioner’s prayer for leave encashment and by virtue of decision referred above it had already been decided that leave encashment cannot be withheld. With the above view, the petition was disposed of. [Pawan Kumar v. Punjab State Co-operative Societies,2018 SCC OnLine P&H 1677, decided on 02-11-2018]