Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.45 seconds)
Deoki Nandan Agarwal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 16 May, 1986 cites

Union Of India vs Gurnam Singh on 3 May, 1982

"Leave necessarily implies authorised absence from duty or employment (See Webster's Third New International Dictionary). Rule 20-B makes provisions for payment of cash equivalent of leave due under the appropriate provisions but subject to a maximum of 180 days. We have already indicated that the ratio of Gurnam Singh's case, AIR 1982 SC1265 has not been disputed. It would necessarily mean acceptance of the position that the Act did not make provision for payment of the retirement benefits contemplated under Rule 20-B, otherwise Rule 20-B could not have been applied The scheme in Rule 20-B is that the payment would be made suo motu and without any application for it. Leave referred to under the Act is one which has to be asked for and is intended to meet a different situation. For calculating the benefits under Rule 20-B, Section 5(3) of the Act is not relevant and in case in the leave account maintained under Section 4 of the Act leave is due, the benefit under Rule 20-B, has to be worked out subject to the upper limit of 180 days, equal to six months. The claim made by the petitioner that he was entitled to the benefit of six months is, therefore, justified subject, of course, to admissibility of leave to the extent of 180 days in the leave account. No dispute was raised before me that as a fact petitioner had to his credit more than 180 days of leave."
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 23 - R S Pathak - Full Document
1   2 Next