Order passed by the Prathama U.P. Gramin Bank, respondent no. 1 dated 6.7.2021 refusing to sanction the leave encashment on the ground that the petitioner has already been dismissed from service on 22.7.2013 is assailed in this petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Bangali Babu Misra Vs. State of U.P., 2003 (3) AWC 1760 to contend that the denial of the leave encashment, in the facts of the case, is arbitrary.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further places reliance upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Deepak Sapra vs. Punjab National Bank, decided on 18.09.2013, which arose in the context of claim for payment of leave encashment of an employee who was compulsorily retired from service. That case is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as the Division Bench noticed the provisions in para 6, as per which all leaves to the credit of an officer were to lapse on dismissal of employee. This para clearly goes contrary to the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner and is reproduced hereinafter:
"6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions as well as the documents on record. Regulation 38 of the 1979 Regulations reads as follows:
"Lapse of leave Save as provided below, all leave to the credit of an officer shall lapse on resignation, retirement, death, LPA693/2013 Page 5 discharge, dismissal or termination for any reason.
Provided that where an officer retires from the Bank's service, he shall be eligible to be paid a sum equivalent to the emoluments of any period not exceeding 240 days of privilege leave that he had accumulated;
Provided further that where an officer dies while in service, there shall be payable to his legal representatives, a sum equivalent to the emoluments for the period not exceeding 240 days of privilege leave to his credit as on the date of his death.
Provided also that where an officer resigns from service on or after 1st April 2001 after giving due notice as in sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 20, he may be paid a sum equivalent to the emoluments in respect of privilege leave to the extent of half of such leave to his credit on the date of cessation of service, subject to maximum of 120 days."
Reliance is also placed upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bank of Baroda vs. S. K. Kool, (2014) 2 SCC 715, which is also distinguishable inasmuch as bipartite settlement in that case clearly saved certain benefits even in a case of dismissed employee.
Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Dhir Chand Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2018 Law Suit ( P &H) 2834 which interpreted Rule 2.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. The specific provision permitted grant of compassionate allowances even after dismissal and it was in that context that the Court proceeded to grant benefit to the petitioner there. No such provision is show in the statutory regulations which governs the service conditions of the employee of Prathama Bank.
The aforesaid contention is opposed by Sri Yashwant Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been dismissed from service on 23.7.2013. No provision in the statutory regulation is shown which allows payment of leave encashment even to a dismissed employee. Ordinarily, a dismissal order would curtail all service benefits which are otherwise admissible to an employee. The order of dismissal is not under challenge. Petitioner, in such circumstances, cannot claim payment of leave encashment as a matter of right. Order impugned merits no interference.
Dismissed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 17.8.2021 n.u.