Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, October 15
In
a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled
that the accumulated unutilised leave of an employee cannot be reduced
to 300 days even if he is entitled to leave encashment for a maximum of
300 days.
The
ruling came in case of Haryana Government employees after the High
Court was told that accumulated earned leave was reduced to 300 days
time and again during the course of service on the assumption that they
were entitled to a maximum of 300 days earned leave.
Eventually,
when the time came for encashment of unutilised earned leave, they were
granted the benefit for lesser number of days.
“If
an employee is entitled to leave encashment for a maximum limit of 300
days, that does not mean that the accumulated unutilised leave is to be
reduced to 300 days if it exceeds the limit. The earned leave will
continue to accumulate till the retirement of the petitioners and the
petitioners are to be granted the maximum benefit of 300 days, as stated
in the rules,” Justice Kuldip Singh ruled.
The
ruling came on a petition by Jaipal Phogat and another petitioner
against the State of Haryana and other respondents. Justice Kuldip Singh
asserted the “unfortunate controversy” was regarding the method used to
calculate unutilised earned leave of petitioners Jaipal Phogat and
Jaibhagwan.
Retired
mechanics, the petitioners had claimed that they were entitled to leave
encashment of 300 days unutilised earned leave. Petitioner number one
was is entitled to 300 days leave encashment, but was granted the
benefit of 257 days. Petitioner number two, on the other hand, was
entitled to 268 days leave encashment, but was granted the benefit of
211 days.
During
the course of the hearing, Justice Kuldip Singh asked both parties to
file calculation sheets. He added that the examination of calculation
sheet regarding Phogat showed mischief was done while calculating
unutilised earned leave on April 27, 1999, May 22, 2003, and October 31,
2007.
The
unutilised earned leave for 362 days, 375 days and 335 days,
respectively, was reduced to 300 days on the assumption that the
petitioner was entitled to a maximum of 300 days earned leave.
Similarly,
in Jaibhagwan’s case, earned leave was reduced on August 11, 2002, May
22, 2003, and August 22, 2003, from 308 days, 307 days and 305 days,
respectively.
“The
calculation done by the respondents is not only mischievous, but wrong
application of the principle of calculation of unutilised earned leave
is also there. As such, the calculations made by the petitioners are
accepted and that of the respondents are set aside,” the High Court
ruled.
