RISHIKESH DAS vs DEPARTMENT OF POSTS on 16 October 2026

ORDER

PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

This O.A. has been filed by the applicant seeking to set aside and quash the impugned letter dated 26.06.2024 (Annexure A1) issued by the respondents, which rejected his claim for leave encashment. The applicant further prays for a direction to the respondents to release his accumulated leave encashment and Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme (CGEGIS) money, which fell due upon the cessation of his employment via removal from service on 14.08.2023, along with interest @ 12% per annum.

2. Sri M. Chanda, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that while the applicant working as Postal Assistant at Nongpoh SO, the Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Meghalaya Division cum Disciplinary Authority issued impugned Charge Memorandum dated 19.02.2021 under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 with charges relating to supervisory function over employees who involved in fraud and misappropriation of Govt. money. Applicant submitted written statement of defence dated 03.04.2021 and

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

participated in the inquiry proceedings. The Disciplinary proceedings were concluded by issuing the penalty order dated 14.08.2023 imposing penalty of removal from service, which was issued 17 days before retirement due on 31.08.2023. Applicant submitted appeal dated 11.09.2023 against the impugned penalty order, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 01.07.2024 thereby upholding the penalty order.

3. Sri Chanda further submitted that on termination of service, applicant had not been granted the leave encashment and GIS money. He had only been granted PF money. Since there is no scope for denial of the same under any rule or executive instructions, hence the applicant is entitled to leave encashment on his removal from service as per conditions prescribes in Rule 27(b) and 39(6)(a) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 which provides as under: "When a Government servant is removed or dismissed from service, credit of earned leave shall be allowed at the rate of 2% days per completed calendar month up to the end of the calendar month preceding the calendar month in which he is removed or dismissed from service”.

"Where the services of a Government servant are terminated by notice or by payment of pay and

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

allowances in lieu of notice or otherwise in accordance with the terms and conditions of his appointment, he may be granted, suo motu, by the authority competent to grant leave, cash equivalent in respect of both earned leave and half pay leave at his credit on the date on which he ceases to be in service subject to a maximum of 300 days and the cash equivalent payable shall be the same as in sub-rule (2) of Rule 39]"

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has also referred Rule 39(3) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 which provides as follows: "The authority competent to grant leave may withhold whole or part of cash equivalent of earned leave in the case of a Government servant who retires from service on attaining the age of retirement while under suspension or while disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending against him, if in the view of such authority there is a possibility of some money becoming recoverable from him on conclusion of the proceedings against him on conclusion of the proceedings, he will become eligible to the amount so withheld after adjustment of Government dues, if any."

As per the learned counsel, no disciplinary proceeding was pending against the applicant. The disciplinary proceeding initiated by Charge sheet dated 19.02.2021 was concluded by Penalty Order dated 14.08.2023 and upheld by the Appellate order dated 01.07.2024. No other criminal proceedings are also pending against the applicant. The disciplinary proceedings concluded in the order of removal

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

from service and there is no order of recovery from the applicant. Being aggrieved, applicant submitted a representation before the respondent No. 4 on 09.04.2024 wherein the respondent No. 4 vide order dated 26.06.2026 relying upon Rule 9(1) of CCS Leave Rules 1972 read with Rule 39 has been held that the applicant is not entitled to any leave encashment as he was removed from service.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that in respect of similarly situated dismissed railway employee, who was granted GIS money but not leave encashment, this Tribunal by order dated 05.12.2023 in O.A. No. 040106212023 had been directed the railway respondents to make payment of leave encashment amount after verifying his leave due as per his service book within a period of six weeks. The applicant being similarly situated is also entitled to similar benefit of grant of leave encashment and GIS money. Learned counsel has also placed reliance the case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Of Rajasthan & Others Versus O.P. Gupta [2022 Live Law (SC) 785, Para 27 and 281 wherein it has been laid down that when rules framed by the

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

Government such as Pension Rules are capable of more interpretations that one, the Courts should lean towards that interpretation which goes in favour of the employee.

6. By filing written statement, Sri A. Kundu, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents submitted that Rule 39(3) of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 allows withholding of leave encashment in the case of a Government Servant, who retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation while under suspension or while disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending him, if in view of the authority there is a possibility of some money becoming recoverable from him on conclusion of the proceedings against him. On conclusion of the proceedings, he/she will become eligible to the amount so withheld after adjustment of Government dues, if any. A government servant, who is dismissed/removed from service, ceases to have any claim to leave at his credit from the date of such dismissal, as per Rule 9(1) of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972. Hence, the applicant is not entitled to any leave encashment. As per the learned Addl. CGSC, vide Memo dated 26.06.2024, the applicant has been

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

denied only the leave encashment but not denied the GIS payment, but unable to process the payment because the applicant’s Service Book is currently in the custody of the CBI, Shillong.

7. We have heard the rival submissions at length and perused the judgment and documents relied upon.

8. To arrive at a logical conclusion, we must harmoniously interpret the provisions of Rule 39(3) and Rule 9(1) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972. Rule 39(3) permits the competent authority to withhold the whole or part of the cash equivalent of earned leave only in cases where a Government servant retires on attaining the age of superannuation while under suspension, or while disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against him. The applicant’s case, however, does not fall within the territory of superannuation under suspension or pending inquiry. The applicant was removed from service on 14.08.2023 as a measure of penalty. For such distinct eventualities, Rule 9(1) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 categorically mandates:

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

“Except as provided in Rule 39 and this rule, any claim to leave to the credit of a Government servant, who is dismissed or removed or who resigns from Government service, ceases from the date of such dismissal or removal or resignation."

9. By reading these provisions, it is explicitly clear that a government servant who is dismissed or removed from service ceases to have any claim over the leave remaining at his credit from the date of such penalty. The statutory right to claim a cash equivalent is extinguished by operation of Rule 9(1). Consequently, the respondents' order dated 26.06.2024 rejecting the leave encashment claim is a valid, legally sustainable order that warrants no judicial interference.

10. Regarding the Group Insurance Scheme (CGEGIS) payment, we note the explicit statement of the respondents that the applicant has not been denied the GIS payment. The processing has merely been stalled because his Service Book is currently in the custody of the CBI, Shillong. Since the entitlement to CGEGIS money does not cease upon removal from service under the provisions of the 1980 Scheme, the respondents cannot hold on to these funds indefinitely. A

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

directive to process this payment using attested copies or a reconstituted service record will meet the ends of justice.

11. In view of the above stated facts and statutory positions, the applicant’s prayer for quashing of the letter dated 26.06.2024 and the release of leave encashment is turned down. The O.A. is dismissed to the extent of the claim for leave encashment. However, with respect to the Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme (CGEGIS) money, the respondents are directed to coordinate with the CBI, Shillong, to obtain necessary authenticated extracts of the Service Book, or project the calculation based on available office copies, and release the admissible GIS amount to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

12. The O.A. stands disposed of with the above directions. Pending M.A., if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

(MALLIKA ARYA)

(RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)

MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

PB

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY