Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court opined that entitlement to leave encashment is integral to the fundamental rights enshrined under Art. 19(1)(f) and Art. 31 of the Constitution and administrative instruction lacking the force of law cannot override constitutional protections.
The Bombay High Court held that leave encashment is akin to a salary, which is a property, and depriving a person of his property without any valid statutory provision would violate Article 300-A of the Constitution.
“If there is equality and uniformity in each group, the law will not become discriminatory, though due to some fortuitous circumstance arising out of peculiar situation, some included in a class get an advantage over others so long as they are not singled out for special treatment.”
Sikkim High Court: While deciding the instant writ petition regarding leave encashment of a retired re-employed employee of the State
Tripura High Court: Arindam Lodh, J. while noting that there were no legitimate grounds to deny the employee of gratuity and other
Uttaranchal High Court: The Division Bench of Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ. and Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J., allowed a petition which was filed
Jharkhand High Court: Dr S.N. Pathak, J., allowed the present petition, directing the respondents to make payment of the entire retiral benefits
Patna High Court: The Bench of Nilu Agrawal, J. allowed a civil writ petition directing payment of leave encashment to a clerk
Gauhati High Court: The Bench of Manojit Bhuyan, J. disposed of a writ petition filed for leave encashment benefit with direction to
Rajasthan High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Goverdhan Bardhar and Mohammad Rafiq, JJ., upheld the appeal directed against the order passed by
Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Shekher Dhawan, J., dealt with a writ petition for the release of