Dismissed employee not entitled to earned leave encashment under CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972.

The applicants, Ramesh Prasad and Gulab Singh, were employed as Postal Assistants.

Applicant No. 1 was dismissed from service on 31.10.2019, while Applicant No. 2 was dismissed on 30.11.2019, both following disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules for financial irregularities.

After their dismissal, the applicants sought encashment of their accrued earned leave, which the respondents denied.

The respondents justified the denial based on Rule 9(1) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, asserting that leave at the credit of a dismissed government servant ceases from the date of dismissal, and there are no departmental rules allowing encashment for dismissed officials.

Aggrieved, the applicants filed the present Original Application.

The legality or validity of the dismissal orders themselves is not under challenge.

Whether a Government servant, dismissed from service as a penalty, is entitled to encashment of earned leave standing to their credit at the time of dismissal.

Rule 9(1) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, which states that "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".

Article 300-A of the Constitution of India concerning deprivation of property by authority of law.

Fundamental Rule 86(a)(i) regarding leave encashment upon retirement or termination of extension of service.

The principle from Union of India v. R. Reddappa ((1993) 4 SCC 269) that statutory consequences must follow once a valid penalty is imposed.

The Tribunal found that a plain reading of Rule 9(1) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, unequivocally mandates that a claim to leave standing to a government servant's credit ceases upon dismissal, unless falling under specific exceptions not applicable in this case.

Therefore, the leave itself was forfeited by operation of law, precluding any right to encashment.

The argument that earned leave encashment is a protected right under Article 300-A was rejected, as Rule 9(1) constitutes the "authority of law" permitting such deprivation.

The reliance on Fundamental Rule 86(a)(i) was deemed misconceived because that rule applies to retirement or termination of extended service, not to punitive dismissal.

The Tribunal distinguished Apex Court precedent in Jitendra Kumar Srivastava ((2013) 12 SCC 210), noting that in that case, there was no enabling statutory provision for withholding benefits, whereas here, Rule 9(1) expressly authorizes the cessation of leave claims upon dismissal.

The Court further relied on Dr. Mukhtiar Singh v. GNCT of Delhi & Ors. (2013 SCC OnLine Del 2473), which held that where applicable service rules provide for lapse of leave upon dismissal, no right to claim leave encashment survives.

The impugned orders rejecting the applicants' claim for leave encashment were found to be legal, valid, and in consonance with statutory rules.

Accordingly, the Original Application was dismissed, with no order as to costs.