CANARA BANK AND OTHERS Vs. RANVIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short issue raised in the instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is whether the appellants could deny the benefit of leave encashment to the writ petitioner-respondent, who has been compulsorily retired on the basis of findings recorded in an enquiry. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition because it has been found that Regulation 38 of the Canara Bank (Officers Service) Regulation, 1979 (for brevity 'the 1979 Regulation) has not been found applicable to deny the aforesaid benefit. After referring to Regulation 38 of the 1979 Regulation, the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on his earlier judgment rendered in the case of Ashwani Kumar Sharma v. UCO Bank and others, 2006 4 SCT 171, where similar Regulation applicable to UCO Bank was cited and the argument was rejected. Against the aforesaid judgment, LPA No. 191 of 2006 was filed, which has been dismissed on 01.02.2010. It would be profitable to read Regulation 38 of the 1979 Regulation, which reads thus :-

(2.) A perusal of the aforesaid Regulation would show that the leave is to lapse except to the extent when an officer retired from the Bank, he would be eligible to be paid a sum equivalent to the emoluments of any period, not exceeding 240 days of the privilege leave that he had accumulated. The true import of the Regulation is that if an employee has earned more than 240 days leave then only to the extent of 240 days, the leave could be encashed. In such circumstances, the compulsory retirement cannot be regarded anything else than retirement. Even otherwise, the earned leave is always construed deferred payment because an employee have worked on those days when he could have availed leave. In that regard reliance may be placed in para 7 and 8 of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India v. Gurnam Singh, 1982 AIR(SC) 1265, which reads thus :-

(3.) Moreover, the judgment in Ashwani Kumar Sharma's has been affirmed by the Letters Patent Bench in LPA No. 191 of 2007 decided on 01.02.2010 holding that there is nothing in the Regulation 38 of the Regulation 1979 to show that it would not apply to the case of the compulsory retirement.