1 / 11 2025:CGHC:16239 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3238 of 2024 1 - Ravindra Chand Deonath S/o Bifal Chandra Deonath Aged About 60 Years Having Address At Pearl Heights, A2 Tower, Quarter No. 203, Near Apollo Hospital, Lingiyadih, Bilaspur, C.G. 495006 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through Its Chairman, Corporate Office, Sector 24, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - General Manager (Nw-2)- Cum- Disciplinary Authority Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Sector- 24, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Head Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Branch Dhaurabhata, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr.Y. Vijay, Advocate with Mr. Adesh Giri, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 07/04/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is prays for following relief:- AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.04.11 18:05:59 +0530 2 / 11 “10.1 To issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent(s) to release the entire forfeited leave encashment amount of the petitioner; 10.2 To quash the order of forfeiture of entire leave encashment by the Respondent Bank for having passed the order ultra vires the Officers' Service regulations 2013 and also without any valid and plausible reason. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the impugned orders dated 02/02/2023 (Annexure P-7) and the impugned order dated 01/01/2024 (Annexure P-10) to the extent whereby the respondents have ordered for forfeiture of leave encashment which the petitioner is duly entitled to receive. 10.4 This Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant any other relief(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Case of the petitioner, as projected in the writ petition, is that the petitioner initially appointed as Office Assistant in the year 1991 in the respondent/Bank and thereafter, promoted on the post of Officers Scale-I in the year 2015. According to him, during his posting as Branch Head, departmental enquiry was contemplated against the petitioner with regard to certain financial irregularities. In the said departmental enquiry, the charges leveled against the petitioner have been found proved. Thereafter, on 26/12/2022, a show cause notice was issued proposing punishment of dismissal which shall ordinarily be disqualification for future employment. The petitioner submitted his reply and denied the contents of the show cause notice. However, the authorities vide order dated 02/02/2023 inflicted the punishment of compulsory retirement under Rule 39(1)(b)(iii) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulations, 2013 (for short ‘the Regulations’) and also ordered for forfeiture of entire leave 3 / 11 encashment amount. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed vide order dated 01/01/2024. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Regulation 67 provides for lapse of leave. In terms of Regulation- 67 of the Regulations, when an employee of the Bank ceases to be in service, he is entitled to be paid all allowances and pay for the period of privilege leave at his credit and therefore, submits that there is no clause in Regulation-67, which deprives the petitioner from availing the benefit of leave encashment. He further submits that the petitioner had number of leaves to his credit and therefore, despite the order of compulsory retirement, the petitioner could not have been deprived the benefit of leave encashment. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that during the service period, the petitioner committed severe financial irregularities and caused whopping loss to the bank/respondent. Even in the departmental enquiry, the charges leveled against the petitioner have been found proved and hence, after following the due process of law, the order impugned has been passed by imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement and the forfeiture of leave encashment. He would further submit that as per Regulation 67 of the Regulations, 2013, in case of employee who has been punished with the punishment of termination or compulsory retirement then he ceases to be in the services of the Bank, the leave will be automatically lapsed 4 / 11 and he is not entitled for leave encashment. Thus, in the present case also the order of forfeiture of leave encashment has been passed. The same is just and proper and there is no illegality at all. He would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents. 6. For the sake of convenience, it would be appropriate to quote the regulation 67 of the Regulations, 2013, which reads as under 67. Lapse of leave - All leave shall lapse on the death of an officer or employee or if he ceases to be in the service of the Bank ; Provided that where an officer or employee dies in service, there shall be payable to his legal representatives, sums which would have been payable to the officer or employee as if he has availed of the privilege leave that he had accumulated at the time of his death subject to sub-regulation (4) of regulation 61. Provided further that where a staff retires from the service of the Bank, he shall be eligible to be paid a sum equivalent to the emoluments for the period of privilege leave he had accumulated subject to sub- regulation (4) of regulation 61 : Provided also that in respect of the employee where his services are terminated owing to retrenchment, he shall be paid pay and allowances for the period of privilege leave at his credit. 7. Regulation-67, which deals with the lapse of leave provides that all leave shall lapse on the death of an officer or employee or if he ceases to be in the service. 8. An exception has been carved out in the third proviso to Regulation-67, which provides that in respect of the employee, where his services are terminated owing to retrenchment, he shall be paid, pay and allowances for the period of privilege leave at his 5 / 11 credit. Regulation-67 does not elaborate the different eventualities of cessation. Regulation-67, also does not deal with different penalties, which results into cessation. The third proviso of the Regulation-67, only deals with the termination owing to retrenchment and it is provided in the said proviso that in the cases of termination owing to retrenchment, an employee will be entitled for leave encashment. 9. In order to deal with the petitioner's claim with regard to leave encashment, it is first necessary to evaluate as to whether leave encashment is property of the petitioner are not. 10. Regulation-61 in unequivocal terms reflect that an employee earns leave upon performance of duty for certain period of days and therefore, while performing his duties in terms of Regulation- 61, an employee becomes entitled for the privilege leave, which in-turn entitles him for the entire emoluments, as if he was on duty. Therefore, such a privilege leave, which the employee has earned, becomes his property and deprivation from such a property, in absence of statutory rule not permitted. A question regarding pension, came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.S. Nakara and Ors. Vs. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305 wherein the Apex Court has held as under:- "31. From the discussion three things emerge : (i) that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer and that it creates a vested right subject to 1972 rules which are statutory in character because they are enacted in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Art. 309 and clause (5) of Art. 148 of the Constitution ; (ii) that the pension is not an ex-gratia payment but it is a payment for the past service rendered ; and (iii) it is a social 6 / 11 welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey-day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. It must also be noticed that the quantum of pension is a certain percentage correlated to the average emoluments drawn during last three years of service reduced t o ten months under liberalised pension scheme. Its payment is dependent upon an additional condition of impeccable behaviour even subsequent to requirement, that is, since the cessation of the contract of service and that it can be reduced or withdrawn as a disciplinary measure." 11. The Apex Court held that pension is a right and payment of the same does not depend upon the discretion of the government subject to statutory rules. The Apex Court has also referred to an earlier decision of the Apex Court in the case of Deoki Nandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (1971) 2 SCC 330. 12. Therefore, the benefits like pension and leave encashment are earned by an employee and therefore, once such benefit are earned, they become property of an employee and if an employee is deprived of such a property, there has to be specific provision in the statutory rules governing the field. 13. The Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. V Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors. reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210, while dealing with the provisions of Article 300-A of Constitution of India held that the right to property cannot be taken away without due process of law. The Apex Court has held in paragraph-14 as under :- " 14. Article 300 A of the Constitution of India reads as under: "300A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law. - No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." Once we proceed on that premise, the answer to 7 / 11 the question posed by us in the beginning of this judgment becomes too obvious. A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300 A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the appellant t o take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced." 14. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, an employee has a right for leave encashment, which in view of enunciation of law laid down by the Apex Court becomes his property upon earning the same in terms of statutory provisions and therefore, such a right can only be curtailed by another statutory provision empowering the employer to forfeit or withhold the same. 15. In the present case, the stand of the employer is that in terms of Regulation-67, in cases of removal, an employee is not entitled for leave encashment and the further stand of the employer in the present case is that a case of removal is one of the eventuality, on account of which, an employee ceases to be in service of the bank and as per plain reading of Regulation-67, such an employee, who is ceased to be in employment on account of removal is not entitled for leave encashment. 16. Since, the provisions of Regulation-67, does not specifically exclude an employee from availing the benefit of leave encashment, if he has been removed from service therefore, under the garb of third proviso to Regulation-67, an employee cannot be deprived of leave encashment. 17. Such an interpretation of Regulation-67 by the employer is not 8 / 11 permissible, more particularly, when the employer intends to deprive the employee from his legitimate right to property, which he has earned after performing the duties during his entire service career. The stand of the Bank that the term "if he ceases to be" also includes cases of removal in the opinion of this Court, is unsustainable as there has to be specific provision in Regulation- 67, specifying each penalty, which ultimately result in cessation of master- servant relationship. More particularly, when the decision as regards withholding of leave encashment, is in issue, which undisputedly is a right of an employee. 18. Now, to deal with the contentions of the respondents as regards the interpretation of Regulation-67, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, it would be germane to appreciate the provisions of Regulation-72, of the Regulations as well. Regulation-72 provides for gratuity and in the said regulation, the Bank while recognizing the right of the employee, permits disbursement of gratuity to an employee. Therefore, when the leave encashment as well as gratuity is the property of the petitioner, therefore, in the considered view of this court, a restricted interpretation of Regulation-67 would not only be in direct conflict with the provision of Article-300-A of Constitution of India but, will also leave scope with the employer to pass order in whimsical as well as capricious manner. The respondent/Bank cannot take recourse to discrimination in the cases of gratuity as well as leave encashment. When the bank itself permits that even upon penalty of dismissal, an employee is entitled for the gratuity, 9 / 11 if there is no financial loss to the bank, then, in the present case, when undisputedly, there is no financial loss to the bank, under the garb of conspicuously silent provisions of Regulation-67, the petitioner herein could not have been deprived of the benefit of leave encashment, which is not only his statutory right but, also falls within the ambit of provisions of Article 300-A of Constitution of India. 19. This court by order dated 26/03/2025 directed the respondent/bank to file an affidavit stating that in all the matters of termination/compulsory retirement, the bank is forfeiting the leave encashment, as entitled by the employees of the bank. In compliance of the said order, the respondent/bank filed its affidavit on 05/04/2025 stating therein at para 4 as under:- “4. There are only three cases since April 2020 wherein the employee/officer who has been compulsorily retired has been paid with the whole/partial benefit of leave encashment as the authorities had decided to take a lenient view against the delinquent employee/officer looking at the charges. Other than the three cases mentioned herein there are 6 more cases since April 2020 wherein the bank has passed the order of compulsory retirement and just like the present case the amount of leave encashment had been forfeited by the disciplinary authority as the charges levelled against them were serious in nature.” 20. From the affidavit of the respondent/bank it is crystal clear that they are acting as per their whims and fancies and not acting in the matter as per the Regulations, 2013. Thus, the said act of the respondent authorities is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. 10 / 11 21. If the interpretation so suggested by the respondent/Bank in respect of Regulation-67 is accepted, the same would result in exercise of unbridled and also whimsical powers at the hands of employer and then would have direct bearing on the property i.e. leave encashment of an employee. 22. In the present case, the provisions of Regulation-67 are undoubtedly not plain and completely silent about the nature of penalties, which result in cessation of master-servant relationship. The interpretation of Regulation-67, which is favourable to the employer, is not permissible, more particularly, when such interpretation deprives an employee from his right to leave encashment. 23. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the respondent/bank is directed to forthwith release the amount of leave encashment, as admissible to the petitioner, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 24. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extend indicated above. SD/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Gowri/ Amardeep 11 / 11 Headnote Benefits like pension and leave encashment are earned by an employee and therefore, once such benefit are earned, they become property of an employee and if an employee is deprived of such a property, there has to be specific provision in the statutory rules governing the field. पेंशन तथा अवकाश नकदीकरण जैसे लाभों को क्቞चारी ्ቛारा अቌኌजत किकया जाता है, इसलिलये, एक बार ऐसे लाभों के अቌኌजत हो जाने पर, वह क्቞चारी की सम्पलि& हो जाती है तथा यकिद क्቞चारी को ऐसी सम्पलि& से वंचिचत किकया जाता है तो, कानूनी किनय्቞ों, जिजनके ्ቛारा वे शाजिसत होते है, ्቞ें किवकिनቖኌद्ቖ उपबन्ध होना चाकिहये।