Karnataka High Court
G.B.Malagatti Math vs Union Of India on 15 July, 2019
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2019
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BELLUNKE A.S.
W.P.NO.108039/2019 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
G.B.MALAGATTI MATH,
AGE: 61 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED POSTAL ASSISTANT (POST OFFICE)
S/O LATE BASAYYA MALAGATTIMATH,
H T KULKARNI TEACHERS COLONY,
RAJIV GANDHINAGAR,
GADAG-582101.
..... PETITIONER
(BY SRI M M PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF POST,
DAK BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI-110001.
2. POST MASTER GENERAL,
N K REGION,
DHARWAD-580001.
:2:
3. CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL,
KARNATAKA CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560001.
4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES,
GADAG POSTAL DIVISION,
GADAG-582101.
5. GENERAL MANAGER (PA & F),
KARNATAKA CIRCLE,
AT BANGALORE GPO PREMISES,
BENGALURU-560001.
..... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M B KANAVI, ADV.)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL ORDER IN OA
NO.170/00476/2018/BANGALORE VIDE ITS ORDER
DATED 10.12.2018 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND
ALLOW THE APPLICATION OA
NO.170/00476/2018/BANGALORE ON THE FILE OF
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri M.M. Patil, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri M.B. Kanavi, learned counsel appearing for respondents. Perused the records.
:3:
2. Applicant on being discharged from Army was selected to the post of Postal Assistant at Gadag Division with effect from 04.11.2008. On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 31.07.2017. On the ground applicant had accumulated Earned Leave to the extent of 249 days and Half Pay Leave - 88 days to his credit on the day of his retirement and in all 293 days he sought for Leave Encashment for the said days and submitted representation for which only 9 days encashment was granted. Hence, contending that it is contrary to Central Service Rules, 1972 sought for payment of the same. His representation came to be considered and by memo dated 20.02.2018 (Annexure- A9) communicated on 20/21.03.2018 (Annexure-A11) prayer of the petitioner was rejected.
3. Being aggrieved by the same, Original Application came to be filed before Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru in O.A.No.476/2018. After considering the reply statement filed by the contesting respondent, Original Application came to be rejected by :4: order dated 10.12.2018. Hence, petitioner is before this Court.
4. We have heard the arguments of Sri M.M. Patil, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri M.B. Kanavi, learned counsel appearing for respondents. Perused the records.
5. It is the contention of Mr.M.M.Patil that petitioner has entered the civil service as a fresh appointment and was selected along with other candidates and his earlier service rendered in the defence department was not taken into account for the purposes of leave encashment and would press into service Rule 30 of Central Civil Service Rules which would be the relevant rule applicable in case of a fresh appointment and as such he contended on an erroneous application of Rule 39(6)(a)(iii), claim of the petitioner has been rejected by ignoring Rule 39(6)(b). Hence, he prays for allowing the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by Tribunal and prays for original application O.A.No.170/00476/2018 being allowed.
:5:
6. Per contra, Sri M.B. Kanavi, learned counsel appearing for respondents would reiterate the grounds urged before Central Administrative Tribunal in reply statement and prays for dismissal of petition.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for parties and on perusal of relevant provisions of Central Civil Service Rules, it requires to be noticed that under Rule 39(6)(a)(iii), a Government servant, who is re- employed after retirement, on termination of his re- employment would be granted suo motu by the authority competent to grant leave, cash equivalent in respect of earned 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. With effect from 01.07.1997. In fact, period of 240 days which was fixed earlier came to be increased or enhanced to 300 days. Taking this aspect into consideration and the fact that as per communication received from the Army or defence records, dated 28.11.2017 whereunder respondent herein came to be :6: intimated that total leave encashment sanctioned to petitioner was 291 days vide memo dated 20.02.2018 and entitled for 9 days earned leave. Accordingly, 9 days Earned Leave has been extended for being encashed by petitioner. Since petitioner has already been paid with cash equivalent to 291 days by his earlier employer, respondent No.4 has rightly issued memo for 9 days leave encashment. Though Sri M.M. Patil, learned counsel appearing for petitioner on facts would be right in contending that under similar circumstances, some applicants/employees of postal department have been granted ignoring Rule 39(6)(a)(iii), it is trite law that a benefit extended by wrong interpretation of law would not a ground on which writ can be issued to authorities to continue to perpetrate such illegality.
8. Rule 39(6)(a)(iii) is clear and specific which would be applicable to petitioner herein and particularly in the background, petitioner having been appointed as a postal assistant in fourth respondent department with effect from 09.11.2018 it would be Rule 39(6)(a)(iii) which would be applicable and not Rule 39(6)(b). Further, it is :7: not the case of petitioner that he had not been paid cash equivalent to 291 days in his earlier employment and as such the encashment which has already been obtained by petitioner from his erstwhile employer i.e., defence department, he cannot be heard to contend that he is still entitled for 300 days leave encashment which, if granted, would amount to extending benefit to the petitioner twice or to put it differently petitioner has already been granted leave encashment for 291 days in the defence department would not be entitled to claim for the same period by subsequent employer namely fourth respondent. As such, we do not find any good ground to entertain the present writ petition. Accordingly, it stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Naa