Jai Ram vs Union Of India on 22 January, 1954
6. The learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the period of leave will be termed as terminal leave which will not be admissible when the employee has been dismissed or removed from service or who resigns his post for reasons of ill-health or for reasons beyond his control. We find no force in the submission of the learned Counsel because the resignation is neither for the reason of ill-health nor for reason beyond the control of the employee. The resignation is only on the supposition that the management has lost confidence in her. It is obvious that the resignation is of the volition of the petitioner rather than for the reasons beyond her control. Thus even the proposition relied upon for terminal rule is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case. The decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant in Jai Ram v. Union of India, , has been noticed only because it was cited at the Bar, though the law laid down in the said judgment is not even remotely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, inasmuch as while interpreting the specific Rule 56(B)(i) of Chapter IX of the Fundamental Rules, it was observed that where the service of the servant
has ceased because of his retirement, he cannot be held to continue in service though at the time he is on post-retirement leave granted to him under special circumstances. Here it is neither a post-retirement leave nor a leave of post-resignation. It is a leave due to an employee which the employee has earned by serving the employer and before demitting office. That was the case where the employee retired after 55 years of service and was seeking that an opportunity should have been given to show-cause that he was still efficient and able to discharge his duties before he could be retired at the age of 55 years. Thus the observation made in the judgment referred to above was only in the context of the facts of that case which is not the case in hand. Thus the law laid down in that judgment is not attracted to the facts of this case.