Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab And Others vs Rajinder Pal on 4 August, 2008
Author: Nirmaljit Kaur
Bench: Nirmaljit Kaur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
C.M. No.6179-C of 2008 and
R.S.A. No.2048 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision : 04-08-2008
State of Punjab and others
.............Appellants
Rajinder Pal
..............Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR
Present : Mr. S.S.Sahu, A.A.G., Punjab
for the appellants.
Nirmaljit Kaur, J.
C.M. No.6179-C of 2008 There is a delay of 130 days in filing the appeal. The delay in filing the present R.S.A. is condoned. C.M. is accordingly allowed.
R.S.A. No.2048 of 2008 (O&M) The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 15-02-2007 passed by the trial Court and the judgment and decree dated 21-09-2007 passed by the Appellate Court.
The brief facts of this case are that the respondent/plaintiff joined Punjab Government Teaching Department on 05-02-1972 and C.M. No.6179-C of 2008 and R.S.A. No.2048 of 2008 (O&M) -2- retired on 31-03-2001.The main grievance of the respondent/plaintiff is that he is entitled for leave encashment of 179 days as earned leave out of which leave encashment of 87 days was not paid. For proper adjudication of this case, it is relevant to re-produce the Rule 8.117 of Punjab Civil Service Rules :
" 8.117.(a) Earned leave is not admissible to a Government employee serving in a vacation department in respect of duty performed in any year in which he avails himself of the full vacation. [(b) The earned leave admissible to such Government employee in respect of any year in which he is prevented from availing himself of the full vacation is such proportion of the following periods as the number of days of vacation not taken bears to the full vacation :-
(i) to a Government employee with 10 years' service or less: 15 days
(ii)to a Government employee with more than ten years' service but not exceeding 20 years' service: 20 days.
(iii)to a Government employee with over 20 years' service:30 days.
If in any year he does not avail himself of the vacation, earned leave will be admissible in respect of that year in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8.116."
It is clear from the reading of Section 8.117(b) that the vacation department is not entitled to leave encashment. It is further admitted that teaching department is a vacation department. The respondent-plaintiff belongs to the Teaching Department and hence,he is not entitled to leave encashment, unless and until he has been restrained from availing the said leave. The Courts below have specifically held after perusing orders Exhibit P-2 to P-28, C.M. No.6179-C of 2008 and R.S.A. No.2048 of 2008 (O&M) -3- that the respondent-plaintiff had been prevented from availing vacation for full period in the years 1994, 1995 and 1996 as he was deputed Incharge of the School during vacation period. Hence, he is entitled to claim 30 days earned leave per year as he had been prevented from availing full/entire vacation. For the year 1997, he is entitled to Earned leave proportionately as per formula in the aforesaid Rule as he was not deputed on duty for the entire vacation period for the year 1997. There is a concurrent finding that the respondent was required to work during his vacation period. Thus, the leave encashment has been rightly granted in accordance with the parameters of Rule 8.117(b).
No other ground was raised.
Hence, there appears no justification to interfere in the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Further, there is no substantial question of law raised in the Regular Second Appeal.
No merits.
Dismissed.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE August 04,2008 gurpreet