Respondents directed to decide the deceased employee’s leave-encashment claim by a reasoned order within six weeks.

The applicant, Tasbbasum Naseem, was the widow of Dr. Mohammad Asif Iqbal Fazli, a doctor employed in the respondents’ Health Department and posted at Gousia Hospital, Khanyar, Srinagar. He died in harness on 20 June 2016.

Although the respondents released the pensionary benefits payable to the applicant, the earned-leave salary allegedly due to the deceased employee remained unpaid.

The applicant relied upon the death certificate, Pension Payment Order, documents showing the earned-leave salary claimed, and her identity and bank documents.

She stated that she had made repeated oral and written requests, including a representation to the Director, Health Services, Kashmir, but no decision had been communicated.

During the hearing, she limited her prayer to a direction requiring the respondents to treat the Original Application as a representation and decide it in accordance with law.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the applicant’s claim for release of the earned-leave salary of her deceased husband under the applicable rules governing leave encashment and terminal benefits.

Whether the Original Application could be disposed of by directing the respondents to treat it as a representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period, without adjudicating the merits of the entitlement.

The Tribunal applied the principle that an administrative authority must consider a duly raised service or pensionary claim in accordance with the applicable rules, regulations, and governing law, subject to the claimant establishing eligibility and entitlement and there being no legal impediment.

It further applied the procedural requirement that the competent authority must pass a detailed, reasoned, and speaking order on the claim within the prescribed period and communicate the decision to the claimant.

Since the applicant’s limited request was for consideration of her pending claim rather than an immediate adjudication or unconditional direction for payment, the Tribunal found that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the Original Application pending.

The respondents did not oppose disposal with appropriate directions, without prejudice to their rights and contentions.

Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the respondents to examine the Original Application and its annexures under the applicable leave-encashment and terminal-benefit rules, while preserving the respondents’ authority to determine eligibility, entitlement, and any legal impediment.

The respondents were directed to treat the Original Application as a representation, consider the applicant’s claim for the earned-leave salary of her deceased husband in accordance with law, and pass a detailed, reasoned, and speaking order within six weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The decision was to be communicated to the applicant thereafter.

No order was made as to costs.