Telangana High Court
WP/22796/2005 of A.V.Govinda Rajulu Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited on 29 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.22796 of 2005 Date:29.12.2005 Between: A.V.Govinda Rajulu --------PETITIONER The Singareni Collieries Company Limited and another ---------RESPONDENTS ORDER: The petitioner was initially appointed in the Forest Department of the Government, the
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
W.P.No.22796 of 2005
Date:29.12.2005
Between:
A.V.Govinda Rajulu
The Singareni Collieries Company Limited and another
--------PETITIONER
---------RESPONDENTS
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner was initially appointed in the Forest Department of the Government,the second respondent herein, as Forest Range Officer on 1.11.1966. He continuedin Government service up to 14.08.1980. Thereafter, he was appointed as Timberand Plantation Officer in the Singareni Collieries Company Limited, the firstrespondent herein. He is due to retire on 31.12.2005.
The petitioner contends that he made a representation to the 1[st] respondent, forextension of the benefit of leave encashment, that has accrued to him while inGovernment service. He contends that the second respondent has communicatedthe details of the leaves that had accrued to him way back on 03.06.1997 and so far,the first respondent has not taken steps to consolidate them for the purpose ofpayment of leave encashment.
The first respondent filed counter-affidavit stating that it is under obligation to extendthe benefit of leave encashment to the petitioner, only for the service actuallyrendered by him in the organization and that there is no provision, which mandatesthat they should pay such benefits for the service of the petitioner, under the secondrespondent.
The second respondent filed counter-affidavit narrating the relevant facts and themanner in which the petitioner came to be appointed with them and thereafter, relieved from the service of the Government. In para ‘8’ of the counter-affidavit, it iscategorically stated that they are prepared to extend the benefit of leave encashmentto the petitioner, for the period between 01.11.1966 and 14.08.1980.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader forForests and the learned standing counsel for the first respondent.
The controversy in this writ petition is as to the entitlement of the petitioner, to bepaid the benefit of leave encashment. The service of the petitioner is divided into twospells; one with the second respondent and the other with the first respondent. In theordinary course of things, an employer would be under obligation to pay the benefitsto the employees, only for the period of service rendered with them. Where,however, the employment of an employee is partly in the Government and partly witha public enterprise, provisions are made to ensure that the benefits for the entireservice rendered in both organizations are extended, at the time of retirement.Different Government orders came to be issued in this regard.
The first spell of the service of the petitioner between 01.11.1966 and 14.08.1980 iswith the second respondent and the service between 15.08.1980 and 31.12.2005 iswith the first respondent. Since the first respondent is a public enterprise, thepetitioner is entitled to the continuity of service in the matter of payment of leaveencashment.
The orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.315 Finance & Planning(FIN.WING FR.I) Department, dated 06.09.1977, are to the effect that theGovernment would forward the accrued benefit to the public enterprise, so that it canbe passed on to the employee, at the time of retirement. In the instant case, thesecond respondent has forwarded the particulars of leave encashment of thepetitioner, but did not forward the corresponding amount. However, they have givena categorical undertaking in para ‘8’ of the counter-affidavit that they would pay therequisite amount to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the grievance of thepetitioner, virtually, stands redressed. It should make little difference for him whetherthe second respondent makes over the amount to the first respondent, or pays it tothe petitioner directly. The second respondent needs particulars of service of thepetitioner, with the 1[st] respondent, for the purpose of making necessarycomputations.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed, directing that the firstrespondent shall furnish the particulars of leave to the credit of the petitioner, as onthe date of his retirement; to the second respondent, on or before 15.01.2006. Onreceiving the same, the second respondent shall undertake necessary calculationand pay the corresponding amount of leave encashment to the petitioner for theperiod between 01.11.1966 and 14.08.1980, by the end of February, 2006. Thepetitioner shall be entitled to be paid the balance, on this account, for the period ofhis service from 15.08.1980 to 31.12.2005 by the first respondent. There shall be noorder as to costs.
________________
29.12.2005
kdl