Karnataka High Court
Dr Surendra Pal vs Union Of India on 16 April, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:15861
WP No. 18906 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 18906 OF 2021 (S-R)
BETWEEN:
DR. SURENDRA PAL
SON OF THE LATE
SRI MALSING PAREEK KHETRI
PENSIONER
AGED 72 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SHIVAM,
NO.3, 9TH CROSS, ISRO LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560 111
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R.I. D'SA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT
Digitally MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
signed by DRDO BHAVAN,
SUMA RAJAJI MARG,
Location: NEW DELHI-110 011
HIGH
COURT OF 2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR,
KARNATAKA DEFENCE INSTITUTE OF
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
GIRINAGAR,
PUNE-411025
3. THE DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF PERSONNEL (DOP)
DEFENCE RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION,
DRDO BHAVAN,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:15861
WP No. 18906 of 2021
RAJAJI MARG,
NEW DELHI-110 011
4. THE DEFENCE INSTITUTE OF
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY,
GIRINAGAR,
PUNE-411025
BY THE REGISTRAR
5. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC
GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
OLD J.N.U. CAMPUS
NEW DELHI-110 067
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LAST PART OF
ITEM (SUB-RULE) NO.6.3 OF APPENDIX-A TO THE RULES AND
REGULATIONS GOVERNING SERVICE CONDITIONS 2009,
EXTRACTED IN ANNEXURE-A HERETO, AS ALSO TO QUASH AND
DECLARE IN-OPERATIVE AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the last portion of sub-Rule No.6.3 of Appendix A to the Rules and Regulations Governing Service Conditions, 2009 (henceforth referred to as 'the Regulations, -3- NC: 2025:KHC:15861 WP No. 18906 of 2021 2009') and declare them as inoperative. He has also challenged the office memorandum bearing No.12016/5/2009- Estt(L.) dated 31.01.2011 issued by the respondent No.5 modifying the Sub-Rule 6.3 of Appendix A to the Regulations, 2009. He has also challenged the office memorandum bearing reference No.14028/1/2017-Estt(L.) dated 27.06.2017 issued by the respondent No.5 and to declare that the same as not applicable to re-employed Government servants. He has also challenged the reference bearing No.DOP/03/37160/SCM- 1(14)/M/07 dated 19.07.2017 issued by the respondent No.3/ Additional Director (Pers) as not applicable to re-employed Government servants. He has sought for a direction to the respondents to pay the leave encashment benefit of 93 days of unutilized earned leave.
2. The petitioner retired from service of the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO). He was later appointed on contract basis as the Vice Chancellor of the respondent No.4 and the terms of appointment were evidenced in an agreement dated 03.02.2015. Following the execution of the agreement, a formal notification dated 04.02.2015 was issued by the respondent No.4 appointing the petitioner as the Vice -4- NC: 2025:KHC:15861 WP No. 18906 of 2021 Chancellor of the respondent No.4. The term of the petitioner as the Vice Chancellor of the respondent No.4 came to an end on 10.02.2018 after he completed 70 years of age. The petitioner claims that he worked in the respondent No.4 without availing a single day's leave. After his term came to an end, he was granted all the eligible benefits under the agreement. However, the encashment of his unutilized earned leave of 93 days was not granted. The petitioner made a claim on 09.04.2018 by an email addressed to the respondent No.2 and quoted therein two cases where payments were made to the Dr. Prahlada - Vice Chancellor who had occupied the post before him and to Mr. Batra, Registrar, Adm., from Indian Navy who were granted the benefit of leave encashment. The petitioner contends that when he retired from ISRO, he had at the time of his retirement, received leave encashment benefit of 296 days. The respondent No.4 being instructed by the respondent No.2, addressed a letter dated 28.05.2018 refusing to pay the leave encashment to the petitioner by relying upon the office memorandum dated 31.01.2011. The petitioner contends that as per the terms of the contract, he was entitled -5- NC: 2025:KHC:15861 WP No. 18906 of 2021 to leave encashment without reference to the benefit that he had availed at the time of his retirement from ISRO.
3. Being aggrieved by the refusal to grant the benefit of leave encashment for the service rendered in the respondent No.4, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was reappointed as the Vice Chancellor of respondent No.4 and therefore, the benefits that the petitioner had availed at the time of his superannuation from ISRO cannot be considered and the leave encashment benefit that the petitioner is entitled to for his service at the respondent No.4 cannot be adjusted against the limit of 300 days. He contends that the service rendered by the petitioner at the respondent No.4 is in its nature independent than the service rendered by him at ISRO and consequently, the petitioner has to be granted the benefit of leave encashment for the period of service rendered at respondent No.4. He, therefore, contends that all contrary orders or official memoranda and the Sub-Rule 6.3 of Appendix A to the Regulations, 2009 of the respondent No.4 -6- NC: 2025:KHC:15861 WP No. 18906 of 2021 have to be set at naught or declared inoperable and the benefit of leave encashment should be granted to the petitioner.
5. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent No.4 who has contended inter alia that clause No.10 of the agreement dated 03.02.2015 between the petitioner and the respondent No.4 provided for the benefit of leave encashment, which reads as follows:
"10. The PARTY of the First Part shall be eligible for encashment of Earned Leave as admissible under the relevant Rules for DIAT (DU) and in conformity with the Rules/Guidelines of Govt. of India, issued from time to time, on cessation of his appointment under this Presents."
6. The Rules and Regulations Governing Service Conditions, 2009 of the respondent No.4 provided for leave which inter alia provided:
"6. Leaves 6.1 xxx 6.2 xxx 6.3 The Vice-Chancellor on relinquishing the charge of his/her Office shall be entitled to receive a sum -7- NC: 2025:KHC:15861 WP No. 18906 of 2021 equivalent to the leave salary admissible for the number of days of leave on full pay due to him at the time of his/her relinquishment of charge, subject to a maximum of the number of days as prescribed by the Government of India from time to time."
7. It is contended that under Rule 39(6)(a)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, (for short, 'the Rules, 1972') a Government servant, who is re-employed after retirement may, on termination of his re-employment, be granted, suo motu, by an authority competent to grant leave, cash equivalent in respect of both earned leave and half pay leave at his credit on the date of termination of re-employment subject to a maximum of 300 days including the period for which encashment was allowed at the time of retirement. It is contended that the petitioner retired from service from ISRO Satellite Centre, Bengaluru and on superannuation, he was paid leave for 300 days (296 Earned Leave + 4 Half Pay Leave). Therefore, the petitioner has been granted 300 days of leave encashment for his service in ISRO and therefore, he is not entitled for further leave encashment beyond 300 days in terms of the Rules and Regulations as stated above. It is also contended that the leave encashment that was granted to -8- NC: 2025:KHC:15861 WP No. 18906 of 2021 Dr.Prahlada, former Vice-Chancellor and Rear Admiral Mr. V.S. Batra was recovered from them and therefore, the petitioner cannot hinge his case on the cases of Dr. Prahlada and Mr. V.S.Batra.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the above and contended that the petitioner is entitled to leave encashment not exceeding 300 days. Since the petitioner has obtained this benefit at the time of his retirement from ISRO, he cannot again compel the respondent No.4 to grant earned leave for the term of his service at the respondent No.4.
9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
10. The fact that the petitioner had retired from service from ISRO Satellite Centre and that he had availed the benefit of encashment of 300 days of earned leave is not in dispute. The petitioner was re-employed by the respondent No.4 as the Vice Chancellor. The terms of employment were captured in an agreement dated 03.02.2015 and Clause No.10 of the agreement as extracted above indicated that the petitioner -9- NC: 2025:KHC:15861 WP No. 18906 of 2021 would be eligible for encashment of earned leave as admissible under the relevant Rules for the Defence Institute of Advanced Technology (Deemed University) and in conformity with the Rules prescribed by the Government of India. In the case of a person re-employed after retirement, Rule 34 of the Rules, 1972 is applicable as if he had entered Government service for the first time on the date of his re-employment. Rule 39 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 reads as follows:
"39. Leave/Cash payment in lieu of leave beyond the date of retirement, compulsory retirement or quitting of service (1) No leave shall be granted to a Government servant beyond-
(a) the date of his retirement, or
(b) the date of his final cessation of duties, or
(c) the date on which he retires by giving notice to Government or he is retired by Government by giving him notice or pay and allowances in lieu of such notice, in accordance with the terms and conditions of his service, or
(d) the date of his resignation from service.
(2)(a) Where a Government servant retires on attaining the normal age prescribed for retirement under the terms and conditions governing his service, the authority
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15861 WP No. 18906 of 2021 competent to grant leave shall, suo motu, issue an order granting cash equivalent of leave salary for both earned leave and half pay leave, if any, at the credit of the Government servant on the date of his retirement subject to a maximum of 300 days;
(b) The cash equivalent of leave salary under Clause (a) shall be calculated as follows and shall be payable in one lumpsum as a one-time settlement,--
Cash Pay admissible Number of
equivalent on the date of days of
for earned retirement plus unutilized
leave Dearness earned leave
Allowance at credit
admissible on subject to
that date the total of
=
------------------ x earned leave
30 and half pay
leave not
exceeding
300 days
Cash Half pay leave Number of
payment in salary days of half
lieu of half admissible on pay leave at
pay leave the date of credit subject
component retirement plus to the total
Dearness of earned
Allowance leave and
admissible on half pay
=
that date leave at
------------------ x credit not
30 exceeding
300 days
NOTE.-- The overall limit for encashment of leave including both earned leave and half pay leave shall not exceed 300 days.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15861 WP No. 18906 of 2021
(c) To make up the shortfall in earned leave, no commutation of half pay leave shall be permissible. (3) The authority competent to grant leave may withhold whole or part of cash equivalent of earned leave in the case of a Government servant who retires from service on attaining the age of retirement while under suspension or while disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending against him. If in the view of such authority there is a possibility of some money becoming recoverable from him on conclusion of the proceedings against him. On conclusion of the proceedings, he will become eligible to the amount so withheld after adjustment of Government dues, if any.
(4)(a) Where the service of a Government servant has been extended, in the interest of public service beyond the date of his retirement, he may be granted--
(i) during the period of extension, any earned leave due in respect of the period of such extension plus the earned leave which was at his credit on the date of his retirement subject to a maximum of 180 days / 300 days as the case may be, as prescribed in Rule 26.
(ii) after expiry of the period of extension, cash equivalent in the manner provided in Clause (b) of sub-rule (2) in respect of both earned leave and half pay leave at credit on the date of retirement, plus the earned leave and half pay leave earned during the period of extension reduced by the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15861 WP No. 18906 of 2021 earned leave and half pay leave availed of during such period, subject to a maximum of 300 days.
(b) The cash equivalent payable under sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) of this sub-rule shall be calculated in the manner indicated in Clause (b) of sub-rule (2) above. (5) A Government servant who retires or is retired from service in the manner mentioned in Clause (c) of sub-rule (1), may be granted suo motu, by the authority competent to grant leave, cash equivalent of the leave salary in respect of both earned leave and half pay leave at his credit subject to a maximum of 300 days. The cash equivalent payable shall be the same as in sub-rule (2) of Rule 39.
(5-A) deleted.
(6)(a) (i) where the services of a Government servant are terminated by notice or by payment of pay and allowances in lieu of notice or otherwise in accordance with the terms and conditions of his appointment, he may be granted, suo motu, by the authority competent to grant leave, cash equivalent in respect of both earned leave and half pay leave at his credit on the date on which he ceases to be in service subject to a maximum of 300 days and the cash equivalent payable shall be the same as in sub-rule (2) of Rule 39.
(ii) If a Government servant resigns or quits service, he may be granted, suo motu, by the authority competent to grant leave, cash equivalent
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15861 WP No. 18906 of 2021 in respect of earned leave at his credit on the date of cessation of service, to the extent of half of such leave at his credit, subject to a maximum of 150 days.
(iii) A Government servant, who is re-employed after retirement may, on termination of his re- employment, be granted, suo motu, by an authority competent to grant leave, cash equivalent in respect of both earned leave and half pay leave at his credit on the date of termination of re- employment subject to a maximum of 300 days including the period for which encashment was allowed at the time of retirement and the cash equivalent payable shall be the same as in sub-rule (2) of Rule 39.
(b) The cash equivalent payable under Clause (a) shall be calculated in the manner indicated in Clause (b) of sub- rule (2) and for the purpose of computation of cash equivalent under sub-clause (iii) of Clause (a), the pay on the date of the termination of re-employment shall be the pay fixed in the scale of post of re-employment before adjustment of pension and pension equivalent of other retirement benefits, and the Dearness Allowance appropriate to that pay."
If Rule 34 and Rule 39 of the Rules, 1972 are read in tandem, it is evident that the petitioner is not entitled to leave encashment beyond 300 days. The contention of the learned
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15861 WP No. 18906 of 2021 counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had worked in the respondent No.4 without availing leave and that he should be compensated for the same by granting earned leave benefit for the term he worked in the respondent No.4, does not appeal to the mind of this Court as it was always open to the petitioner to avail the benefit of leave and if he has not availed the leave, he cannot compel the respondents to pay the benefit equivalent to the leave that he has not availed. There is no reason why the Rules and Regulations Governing Service Conditions, 2009 relating to grant of leave encashment for a period of 300 days is to be interfered with. Consequently, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37