ANDHRA BANK Vs. P BALAKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 16-12-2003 passed in W.P. No. 10704 of 1994 by the learned single Judge of this Court, whereunder the writ petitioner is declared that he is entitled for the relief of encashment of leave accrued for the period from 1-10-1982 to 17-6-1986 on his attaining the age of superannuation as per law.

(2.) The facts of the case may be shortly stated, thus: Writ Petitioner-P. Balakrishna was working as a Cashier in the year 1978 at the main office of the appellants-Andhra Bank, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. Departmental proceedings were initiated against him by the appellants-Bank for shortage of cash of Rs. 11,000/- on 9-5-1978. The charges having been established in the departmental enquiry, an order of dismissal from service was passed on 1-10-1982. Thereafter, an application was made by the appellants Bank for according approval under Section 32(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Industrial Tribunal (Central), at Hyderabad, since I.D. No. 28 of 1982 was pending between the appellants-Bank and the employees of the appellants-Bank. The Tribunal did not approve the action of the appellants-Bank by an order dated 18-2-1986. Eventually, the petitioner came to be reinstated into service on 17-6-1986. He made representations to the appellants- Bank for encashment of the leave accrued to its credit during the period from 1 -10-1982 to 17-6-1986. The appellants-Bank rejected the representations of the petitioner under proceedings LR.No. 66/20/L/304, dated 30-10-1993. Untiringly the petitioner went on making representations to the appellants- Bank for the self same relief. As his representations did not yield any fruitful results, he filed the writ petition seeking the following relief:

(3.) The petitioner contended before the learned Single Judge that consequent on disapproval of the order of dismissal by the Industrial Tribunal, the relationship between the petitioner and the appellants-bank relegated to the date of order of dismissal and as such he is deemed to be in continuous service from the date of order of dismissal to the date of reinstatement with all consequential benefits and in which case he would be entitled to the benefit of privilege leave. Once he is entitled to the privilege leave, there should not be any impediment in encashing the same as per the rules in vogue. Whereas the appellants-Bank contended before the learned Single Judge that the petitioner was not entitled to privilege leave during the period from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement as the said period would not be treated as actual service which an employee was required to do to become eligible for privilege leave. The learned single Judge, on hearing counsel for the parties and on considering the material brought on record, recorded a finding that the petitioner is entitled to the relief of encashment of leave accrued from the period from 1-10-1982 to 17-6-1986 and thereby allowed the writ petition by an order dated 16-12-2003. Hence, the writ appeal by the appellants-Bank. Pending the appeal, the sole respondent/writ petitioner died, and R2 to R7 were brought on record as his LRs as per orders in WAMP.2245/2004, dated 13-9-2004.