Original Application No. 1067 of 2017 · High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. This petition is directed against the order dated 16.08.2023 passed in Original Application No. 1067 of 2017 by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad whereby the OA filed by the respondent has been allowed directing the appellants to make payment of Rs. 4,64,410/- as deducted from the post retiral benefits (gratuity) with 6% simple interest from the date when it became due. Further directions have were given to make payment of leave encashment of 115 days along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date it became due.

Petitioners have challenged the order dated 16.08.2023 only to the extent of direction to make payment of leave encashment of 115 days along with interest.

3. The OA was filed by the respondent inter alia seeking the relief with regard to the deduction made from the retiral benefits and the non payment of leave encashment. In the OA, para 4.21 pertained to the plea relating to leave encashment and reads as under: “4.21- That it is humbly submitted here that the amount of leave encashment of Applicant was also paid less then the full period of 300 days. He was paid Leave Encashment for the period of 185 days only. Payment of Leave Encashment for the period of 115 days is also due, which is to be paid to the Applicant with interests.” 2

4. In response to the OA, para 4.21 was replied as under: “17. That the contents of paragraph nos. 4.18, 4.19, 4.20, 4.21 and 4.22 of this original application are not correct as stated, hence denied. In reply it is submitted that the applicant did not obey the order dated 28.11.2001 of Hon’ble C.A.T and continue to retain the quarter of railway without any right and provisions of the Public Premise Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1971 was not applicable in the case of applicant because the present case is related with the quarter of railway not any private rent case.”

5. It would be seen from the above that though specific plea was raised by the petitioner seeking grant of 115 days leave encashment, in the counter affidavit a bald denial was made. The Tribunal, by its order impugned, after dealing with the issue pertaining to the recovery from the retiral dues, on the aspect of leave encashment, came to the following conclusion and granted the relief as noticed hereinbefore: “So far as the remaining leave encashment amount is concerned, since applicant has made specific prayer in the OA and no cogent answer has been given by the respondents in that regard, the prayer of grant of leave encashment is also liable to be accepted.”

6. It would be seen that on account of the bald denial on the part of the respondents, the plea, as raised, was accepted.

7. The petitioners filed review petition, inter alia, with the submissions that 182 days Leave on Average Pay (LAP) and 13 days Leave on Half Average Pay (LHAP) was balanced and, as such, the respondent was paid for 188 days leave encashment and, as such, no amount was due. Along with the review petition, photocopy of payment details of leave encashment was annexed. The review petition was barred by limitation and, as such, an application seeking condonation of delay was filed. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, did not find any reason to condone the inordinate delay in filing the review petition and, consequently, dismissed the review petition.

8. In the present writ petition, the petitioners have sought to contest the grant of 115 days leave encashment to the respondent 3 based on the material which was sought to be relied on before the Tribunal in review petition. Learned A.S.G.I., with reference to the documents (Annexures-5 and 6), which are calculation sheet prepared at the time of superannuation of the respondent and the leave account respectively, attempted to make submissions that the respondent was paid the leave encashment to the extent he was entitled and the grant of relief by the Tribunal in this regard is wholly unjustified.

9. As the document (Annexure-6), which was produced, did not clarify anything, rather the same created more confusion, the petitioners were directed to produce the origin of Annexure-6, which is the service-book of the respondent containing the leave record. With the assistant of the learned counsel for the petitioners, we attempted to decipher the actual status, however, despite best efforts made in this regard, the position could not be clarified by the learned A.S.G.I. and the entire emphasis was on the fact that the summary, based on which payment was made, indicated 188 days of leave encashment and that grant of 115 days leave encashment by the Tribunal was not justified.

10. As noticed hereinbefore, when the respondent raised specific plea in the OA, a bald denial was made before the Tribunal which resulted in passing of the order for lack of any specific denial to the relief claimed, whereafter attempt was made by filing review petition, which was barred by limitation and, as such, was rejected. Even before this Court, based on the documents produced, though the summary indicates entitlement to the 188 days leave encashment, the same is not supported by Annexure-6, the leave account, despite production of the original by the petitioners, as the same is maintained in such an involved and ambiguous manner that the fact situation cannot be deciphered, even despite assistance provided by counsel for the petitioners. 4

11. In those circumstances, the petitioners have failed to make out any case for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution when admittedly in a writ of certiorari, the Court is expected to confine its determination based on the material available before the Tribunal/Court.

12. In view of the above discussion, we don’t find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. The writ petition has no substance. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 17.05.2025 P.Sri. (Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) PUNEET SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Petitioners have challenged the order dated 16.08.2023 only to the extent of direction to make payment of leave encashment of 115 days along with interest.

3. The OA was filed by the respondent inter alia seeking the relief with regard to the deduction made from the retiral benefits and the non payment of leave encashment. In the OA, para 4.21 pertained to the plea relating to leave encashment and reads as under: “4.21- That it is humbly submitted here that the amount of leave encashment of Applicant was also paid less then the full period of 300 days. He was paid Leave Encashment for the period of 185 days only. Payment of Leave Encashment for the period of 115 days is also due, which is to be paid to the Applicant with interests.” 2

4. In response to the OA, para 4.21 was replied as under: “17. That the contents of paragraph nos. 4.18, 4.19, 4.20, 4.21 and 4.22 of this original application are not correct as stated, hence denied. In reply it is submitted that the applicant did not obey the order dated 28.11.2001 of Hon’ble C.A.T and continue to retain the quarter of railway without any right and provisions of the Public Premise Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1971 was not applicable in the case of applicant because the present case is related with the quarter of railway not any private rent case.”

5. It would be seen from the above that though specific plea was raised by the petitioner seeking grant of 115 days leave encashment, in the counter affidavit a bald denial was made. The Tribunal, by its order impugned, after dealing with the issue pertaining to the recovery from the retiral dues, on the aspect of leave encashment, came to the following conclusion and granted the relief as noticed hereinbefore: “So far as the remaining leave encashment amount is concerned, since applicant has made specific prayer in the OA and no cogent answer has been given by the respondents in that regard, the prayer of grant of leave encashment is also liable to be accepted.”

6. It would be seen that on account of the bald denial on the part of the respondents, the plea, as raised, was accepted.

7. The petitioners filed review petition, inter alia, with the submissions that 182 days Leave on Average Pay (LAP) and 13 days Leave on Half Average Pay (LHAP) was balanced and, as such, the respondent was paid for 188 days leave encashment and, as such, no amount was due. Along with the review petition, photocopy of payment details of leave encashment was annexed. The review petition was barred by limitation and, as such, an application seeking condonation of delay was filed. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, did not find any reason to condone the inordinate delay in filing the review petition and, consequently, dismissed the review petition.

8. In the present writ petition, the petitioners have sought to contest the grant of 115 days leave encashment to the respondent 3 based on the material which was sought to be relied on before the Tribunal in review petition. Learned A.S.G.I., with reference to the documents (Annexures-5 and 6), which are calculation sheet prepared at the time of superannuation of the respondent and the leave account respectively, attempted to make submissions that the respondent was paid the leave encashment to the extent he was entitled and the grant of relief by the Tribunal in this regard is wholly unjustified.

9. As the document (Annexure-6), which was produced, did not clarify anything, rather the same created more confusion, the petitioners were directed to produce the origin of Annexure-6, which is the service-book of the respondent containing the leave record. With the assistant of the learned counsel for the petitioners, we attempted to decipher the actual status, however, despite best efforts made in this regard, the position could not be clarified by the learned A.S.G.I. and the entire emphasis was on the fact that the summary, based on which payment was made, indicated 188 days of leave encashment and that grant of 115 days leave encashment by the Tribunal was not justified.

10. As noticed hereinbefore, when the respondent raised specific plea in the OA, a bald denial was made before the Tribunal which resulted in passing of the order for lack of any specific denial to the relief claimed, whereafter attempt was made by filing review petition, which was barred by limitation and, as such, was rejected. Even before this Court, based on the documents produced, though the summary indicates entitlement to the 188 days leave encashment, the same is not supported by Annexure-6, the leave account, despite production of the original by the petitioners, as the same is maintained in such an involved and ambiguous manner that the fact situation cannot be deciphered, even despite assistance provided by counsel for the petitioners. 4

11. In those circumstances, the petitioners have failed to make out any case for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution when admittedly in a writ of certiorari, the Court is expected to confine its determination based on the material available before the Tribunal/Court.

12. In view of the above discussion, we don’t find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. The writ petition has no substance. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 17.05.2025 P.Sri. (Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) PUNEET SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad