Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: hsmitc in Kalu Ram vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 5 February, 2019Matching Fragments
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.6302 OF 2016 Corporation, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as "the HSMITC") was wound up and thereafter the services of the plaintiff were absorbed in the Department of Revenue as Patwari. He contends that initially he was appointed as a Patwari in the HSMITC on 10.07.1974 and continued as such upto 19.03.1998. His services were absorbed in the Revenue Department on winding up of the Corporation. The plaintiff had 160 days leave encashment to his credit whereas he has been held entitled to 30 days of earned leave encashment only, which is not acceptable as the leave due when he was serving in the HSMITC had to be taken into consideration and not when he was absorbed in the Revenue Department, Government of Haryana, and superannuated from the said Department. He, thus, contends that the judgments and decrees as passed by the Courts below, rejecting the claim of the appellant cannot sustain and deserve to be set-aside.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and with his assistance have gone through the records of the case.
It is an admitted position that the appellant was working with the HSMITC from 10.07.1974 to 18.03.1998. Thereafter his services were absorbed in the Revenue Department, Haryana, from where he superannuated on 30.04.2011. At the time of his retirement, only 10 days leave encashment relating to period from 19.03.1998 to 30.04.2011 was due to him and was given.
The issue, which requires to be considered and decided is whether the service rendered by the appellant in the HSMITC, prior to his absorption in the Revenue Department, Haryana, would entitle him to the benefit of leave encashment, which he is claiming?
2 of 5 C.M. NO.16546 C OF 2016 & :{ 3 }:
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.6302 OF 2016 The said issue has earlier been considered by this Court in its judgment in R.S.A. No.3767 of 2009 (The Managing Director, Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation Vs. D.R.Grover and others), decided on 30.06.2010. The question of law which was framed by this Court has been reproduced in Para 15 of the judgment passed by the lower Appellate Court. As per the same, the matter was regarding entitlement of leave encashment of 300 days as per the State Civil Services Rules inspite of he having taken the benefit under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. It would not be out of way to mention here that the plaintiffs therein were also employees of the HSMITC and were similarly placed as the appellant. This Court proceeded to hold that once a benefit under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has been taken by an employee, he would not be entitled to the benefit of leave encashment for more than 30 days.
This is also apparent from the statutory rules governing the service and from the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act and the Rules, which govern the services of the HSMITC and exhibited as Exhibit D3. Rule 5.5 of Service Bye-Law, 1980 of the HSMITC deals with the leave rules and leave travel concession and travelling allowance, according to which the Corporation employees were governed by the same Rules as are applicable to the Haryana Government employees. Rule 6.3 of the said Bye-laws, Ex.D4, deals with death-cum-retiral gratuity, where it has been mentioned that if the said employee is covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, he shall not be entitled to this benefit.