ASHLESHA MEHATA vs DOORDARSHAN on 30 October 2026

ORDER

Per: Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)

1. The applicant has filed the present OA, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs: (A) That the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to allow this petition. (B)That the Hon’ble Tribunal further be pleased to hold/declare that impugned ex-facie, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional action on the part of the respondents regarding non payment of benefit of leave encashment to the applicant at the time of her retirement in the month of April 2023 non-est in the eyes of law. (C) That, the Hon’ble Tribunal further be pleased to direct the respondents to give/make payment of leave encashment to the applicant with 12% interest thereon without any further delay by way of allowing the present petition. (D) That the Hon’ble Tribunal further be pleased to produce the copy of so called communication dtd. 28/7/2023 of the Respondent No.2 by which the necessary instructions have been sought by the Respondent No.2. (E) That the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondent that the interest which is to be aid to the applicant may be recover from the person concern who is responsible for the same and the heavy costs may be imposed to the person who is responsible for the same. (F) Such other and further relief/s may be deemed just and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted.

2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are as under: - P ANUKUMA

::3 :: OA No 305/2023

2.1 The applicant was working as a Transmission Executive (TREX) under the respondents. She retired from service on superannuation on 30.04.2023. 2.2 Due to pending proceedings against the applicant at the time of retirement, she was granted only provisional pension as per the rules. However, the benefit of leave encashment, which forms a part of terminal salary and is distinct from pending proceedings, was withheld without any contemporaneous reasoned order passed by the competent authority. 2.3 When the applicant’s grievance regarding leave encashment and delayed provisional pension remained unaddressed, her advocate issued a legal notice dated 25.07.2023. In response, the respondents stated that guidance had been sought from the higher authorities vide letter dated 28.07.2023. 2.4 As no formal decision or payment was made, and leave encashment continued to be withheld for more than six months post-retirement, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing the present OA.

3. Submissions of learned counsel for the applicant: 3.1 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.04.2023. 3.2 It is contended that leave encashment is a part of terminal salary representing accumulated earned leave, and it has no direct nexus with pending judicial or criminal proceedings unless a specific recovery or loss is quantified under the rules. P ANUKUMA

::4 :: OA No 305/2023

3.3 Learned counsel argues that under Rule 39 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, the competent authority is required to take a formal decision to grant or withhold leave encashment at the time of retirement. No such adverse order or quantification of recoverable loss was passed by the competent authority on or around the date of retirement. 3.4 It is further submitted that the respondents acted with negligence, failed to process pension papers in advance, and kept the claim for leave encashment pending indefinitely under the guise of seeking retrospective instructions. 3.5 Learned counsel prays that the impugned inaction be declared non-est and the respondents be directed to disburse the leave encashment with 12% interest, alongside fixing accountability and costs.

4. Submissions of learned counsel for the respondents: 4.1 Per contra, respondents have filed their reply and denied the claims of the applicant. 4.2 The respondents contend that major penalty proceedings and criminal cases investigated by the CBI (specifically CBI Special Case No. 31/2009 arising out of RC-18(A)/2008-GNR) were pending against the applicant at the time of her retirement, and she was subsequently convicted by the Special Judge, CBI Court No. 3, Ahmedabad. 4.3 Relying on Rule 39(3) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, the respondents submit that the competent authority is statutorily P ANUKUMA

::5 :: OA No 305/2023

empowered to withhold the whole or part of the cash equivalent of earned leave if a government servant retires while criminal or disciplinary proceedings are pending, given the possibility of money becoming recoverable upon conclusion. 4.4 The respondents maintain that guidance was rightly sought from the cadre controlling authority (DG: DD, New Delhi), which vide letter dated 26.10.2023 directed that the payment of leave encashment be kept in abeyance till the finalization of proceedings. 4.5 Provisional pension was duly paid to the applicant, and the withholding of leave encashment is strictly in accordance with statutory provisions, warranting no interference by this Tribunal.

5. Applicant has filed a rejoinder and reiterated the submissions made in the OA, stating that the authority failed to exercise statutory competence under Rule 39 at the time of retirement, and withholding of leave encashment without a specific quantified government loss is legally unsustainable.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. The core issue for determination is whether the respondents are justified in withholding the entire benefit of leave encashment indefinitely on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings, in terms of Rule 39(3) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, and P ANUKUMA

::6 :: OA No 305/2023

whether the applicant is entitled to the reliefs claimed, including interest. 7.1 Rule 39(3) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 permits the authority competent to grant leave to withhold the whole or part of the cash equivalent of earned leave in the case of a government servant who retires while disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending, if, in the view of such authority, there is a possibility of some money becoming recoverable on conclusion of the proceedings. On conclusion of the proceedings, the government servant becomes eligible to the amount so withheld after adjustment of Government dues, if any. 7.2 In the present case, the applicant has been convicted by the learned Special Judge, CBI Court No. 3, Ahmedabad in CBI Special Case No. 31/2009, and her appeal against the conviction is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat. The cadre controlling authority (DG: DD, New Delhi), vide letter dated 26.10.2023, has directed that the leave encashment be kept in abeyance. An appeal against conviction is a continuation of the criminal proceedings. So long as the appeal is pending, the criminal proceedings against the applicant cannot be said to have concluded within the meaning of Rule 39(3). 7.3 In this case, the action of the respondents in keeping the leave encashment in abeyance pursuant to Rule 39(3) during the pendency of the criminal proceedings cannot be termed illegal or non-est. Upon the final conclusion of legal proceedings and P ANUKUMA

::7 :: OA No 305/2023

determination of government dues or adjustments, the eligible amount is required to be dealt with in accordance with the rules. 7.4 Consequently, the action of the respondents in keeping the payment of leave encashment in abeyance under Rule 39(3) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 is upheld as a permissible interim measure during the pendency/finalization of criminal and departmental proceedings. 7.5 No authority to the contrary has been cited on behalf of the applicant, nor has any judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court or of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat taking a contrary view been brought to our notice.

8. The applicant has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat against her conviction, and on account of its pendency no final decision has been taken by the respondents on the release of the leave encashment. 8.1 In view of the facts that the conviction in criminal case is pending before the Hon’ble High Court, respondents are justified in withholding the Leave Encashment. 8.2 As the criminal proceedings against the applicant are pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, the leave encashment is not payable at this stage, and the claim for interest at 12% (relief C) does not arise and is rejected. 8.3 In view of the above, reliefs (D) and (E), for production of the communication dated 28.07.2023, for recovery of interest from P ANUKUMA

::8 :: OA No 305/2023

the officers concerned and for imposition of costs, do not survive.

9. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed.

10. There shall be no order as to costs.

11. MA pending if any, also stands disposed of.

(Sanjiv Kumar)

(Jayesh V Bhairavia) Member (A)

Member (J)

//Anu// P ANUKUMA