MURARI PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a teacher, retired from the service and has been granted full pensionary benefit as well as provident fund and gratuity but has been denied payment of leave encashment of only 32 days i.e. the leave encashment of the period when the petitioner was in service in earlier school. The petitioner's this benefit has been denied only on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove that he was a candidate within 25 % of the limited selected candidates and got appointment under that category.We perused the order passed by the respondents in pursuant to the direction of this Court passed in the W.P.S. No. 6171 of 2006 vide order dated 13th November, 2006. In this order the respondents only recorded of facts with respect to the petitioner's earlier appointment and continuation thereof in the appointment in Government Secondary High School. In para-6 of that order, it is mentioned that from the service book of the petitioner, it is not clear that petitioner was appointed in the 25% of the above post and direct appoint could have been givenin view of various circular.

(2.) Be that as it may, the petitioner was in government service in earlier school and thereafter, he was appointed in new school and there is already provision of taking 25% teachers of the earlier school to the new school and non mentioning this fact in the service book of the petitioner that he is in that 25% quota, cannot dis-entitle the petitioner the benefit of leave encashment.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-State is that under the circular of 1992 dated 18th July, 1992 though it is mentioned that such employee will be entitled to any other benefit including pensionary benefit and non mentioning of above fact, cannot dis-entitle the petitioner for leave encashment of the period, for which he has already served in the earlier school, which is being claimed by the petitioner because of rendering of his service in the previous school. Therefore, the petitioner is held to be entitled to leave encashment for the aforesaid period and it was the duty of the respondents to show that he was not entitled to the leave encashment for the aforesaid period.