IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.2368 OF 2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
MOHAN CHANDRA P AGED 46 YEARS S/O LATE JANARDHANA NAYAK P R/AT PANJIGAR HOUSE KALANJA POST SULLIA ALUK – 574 212 ... APPELLANT (BY SHRI MADAN CHANDRA P, PARTY IN PERSON) AND:
1. THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDINGS OPP: TO VIDHANA SOUDHA DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU, KARNATAKA – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL 2. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDINGS OPP: TO VIDHANA SOUDHA DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU, KARNATAKA – 560 001 ---
... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.6.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.18627/2019 AND ALLOW WRIT APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellant who was appointed as a Civil Judge was discharged from services under Rule 6(2) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Probationary) Rules, 1977.
2. The grievance made by the appellant in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge was as regards the rejection of the prayer made by him for grant of leave encashment of the earned leave at his credit. The learned Single Judge rejected the petition on the ground that as per Rule 118-A of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (for short ‘the said Rules’), only a government servant who retires from service on attaining the normal age of retirement under the terms and conditions governing his service is entitled to cash equivalent of leave salary for the earned leave.
3. The submission of the appellant appearing in person is that there is no prohibition in the said Rules which prevents the respondents from granting leave encashment to a Government servant who has been discharged. His second submission is based on the decisions of Punjab and Haryana High Court as well as Madras High Court which hold that even in case of an employee who is dismissed from service, his entitlement to receive leave encashment of earned leave is not taken away.
4. The question is after the appellant ceases to be in the employment, whether he is entitled to grant of leave encashment. After he ceases to be in the employment, he can claim leave encashment provided it is permissible as per the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. Rule 118-A of the said Rules is the only Rule which enables a Government servant to claim leave encashment. On a plain reading of sub-rule (1) of Rule 118-A, the same is applicable to a Government servant retiring on attaining the normal age of retirement.
5. The appellant relies upon Rule 118 of the said Rules.
The said Rule is applicable to a Government servant who is in the employment and, therefore, the appellant cannot claim benefit of Rule 118. As far as the decisions of Punjab and Haryana and Mardras High Courts are concerned, the same will nave no application as in this case we are concerned with Rule 118-A. Apart from that, the said decisions are not binding on this Court.
6. While we are dictating the judgment, the appellant appearing in person states that he has made serious allegations against the second respondent of mala fide and, therefore, this appeal be clubbed along with a petition filed by him challenging the order of discharge.
7. Firstly, this request is made after we started dictating the judgment. Secondly, if the order of discharge is set aside and the order of reinstatement is passed, then there will be no question of applying for grant of leave encashment as in that eventuality, Rule 118 of the said Rules will become applicable. Therefore, there is no reason to club this appeal with the writ petition. Hence, we find no reason to interfere in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB