Reasoned order required to determine encashment eligibility of converted APS leave upon resignation.

The Applicant, a 2014 batch Indian Postal Service (Group-A) officer, served on deputation with the Army Postal Service (APS) where she was commissioned as a Captain and later promoted to Major

Upon repatriation to the Department of Posts and subsequent resignation on 31.07.2023, the Applicant had accumulated 177 days of Earned Leave (EL), consisting of 74 days from civil service and 103 days of Annual Leave earned in APS and converted into EL

The Respondents sanctioned encashment for only 37 days of civil EL and refused to encash the 103 days of APS-converted leave via an order dated 09.07.2024

The Applicant filed a representation on 08.07.2025 challenging this exclusion, which remained pending

Consequently, she filed the present Original Application (OA) along with a Miscellaneous Application (MA) to condone a delay of 574 days

1. Whether the delay of 574 days in filing the Original Application warrants condonation in the interest of justice?

2. Whether the 103 days of Annual Leave earned during APS deputation and converted to EL is eligible for encashment upon resignation under the prevailing leave rules?

The Tribunal referred to Rule 39(6)(a)(ii) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, which governs the encashment of leave for government servants who resign from service.

It also considered the Respondents' reliance on Rule 39-D(8), which purportedly restricts the encashment of APS-earned leave to instances of superannuation or retirement rather than resignation.

Regarding the procedural delay, the Tribunal found the reasons stated in the Applicant's affidavit sufficient and condoned the 574-day delay in the interest of justice.

On the substantive dispute, the Tribunal noted the Applicant's contention that Rule 39-D(8) only restricts the availment of APS leave after repatriation and does not bar encashment upon resignation, especially when read with Rule 39(6)(a)(ii).

However, the Tribunal observed that the Applicant’s formal representation dated 08.07.2025 was still pending before the Respondents.

To meet the ends of justice and considering the limited relief sought at the admission stage, the Tribunal determined that the administrative authorities must first exercise their jurisdiction to decide the pending representation through a speaking order before the Tribunal adjudicates on the merits of the statutory interpretation.

The OA was disposed of at the admission stage with a direction to the Competent Authority among the Respondents to consider the Applicant’s representation dated 08.07.2025.

The Respondents are ordered to pass a well-reasoned, speaking order within three months from the date of receipt of the Tribunal's order, without the Tribunal expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.