No Employee is Entitled to Double Monetary Benefits for the Same Leave Encashment Period

The appellant joined the Department of Export Inspection Agency as a Group-D employee in 1983

During his service, specifically between January 1, 1986, and January 20, 1994, the appellant surrendered and encashed 158 days of earned leave

Upon retirement, his total accrued leave was calculated at 285 days. Having already received payment for 158 days, the balance was disbursed at the time of retirement, totaling 285 days of encashment for his entire service tenure

The appellant filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 1766 of 2022) seeking further monetary benefits based on a 1999 internal letter, which was dismissed on February 27, 2024

The appellant subsequently filed this intra-court appeal

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to claim additional leave encashment benefits for a period for which he has already received monetary compensation

2. Whether an internal administrative letter can confer a right to double monetary benefits for the same period of leave

The court applied the principle that leave encashment is a service benefit subject to a maximum ceiling (noted as 300 days in this department)

The court emphasized the principle of equity and administrative law that a government servant cannot claim "double monetary benefits" for the same underlying entitlement

It further held that administrative correspondence or clarificatory letters (such as the letter dated 29.12.1999) cannot supersede the factual reality of prior payments or create a right to redundant financial claims

The Court examined the appellant’s contention that a 1999 letter from the Additional Director suggested that leave encashed between 1986 and 1994 should be treated as "not availed"

The Court found that the appellant admittedly received the monetary value for 158 days during that specific period

The Bench reasoned that even if the leave record was debited or adjusted administratively, the physical receipt of the "monetary benefit" is the deciding factor

Since the appellant had already been compensated for the full 285 days of accrued leave (158 days during service and the balance at retirement), any further claim would constitute an impermissible double payment from the exchequer

The Court affirmed the order of the Writ Court, finding no merit in the appeal. The Writ Appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.