State Bank of India vs.ravinder Kumar (Through: Legal Heirs) - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1213899
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided OnApr-03-2018
AppellantState Bank of India
RespondentRavinder Kumar (Through: Legal Heirs)
Excerpt:
* + 1. in the high court of delhi at new delhi date of order: april 03, 2018 w.p.(c) 5798/2017 & cm241392018 state bank of india ........ petitioner through: mr. shiv k. tyagi, advocate versus ravinder kumar (through: legal heirs) .....respondent coram: hon'ble mr. justice sunil gaur through: nemo order (oral) impugned award of 19th september, 2016 grants `46,315.32/- with interest @10% per annum with costs towards leave encashment of 84 days of privilege leave due to deceased-workman on the date of his removal from service i.e. 22nd january, 2001.2. learned counsel for petitioner submits that workman-ravinder kumar was removed from service by way of punishment and after delay of seven years, the claim petition had been filed. it is submitted that in a case of „removal from service‟, leave encashment is not payable. to submit so, attention of this court is drawn to petitioner-bank’s circular of 8th july, 2015 (annexure p-10).3. upon hearing and on perusal of impugned award and the material on record, i find that leave encashment has been granted to respondent by learned tribunal while observing as under: - w.p.(c) 5798/2017 page 1 of 2 “that since the removal of the workman from service vide order of the banks asstt. general manager dated 22.01.2001, being under clause 21(iv) (b) of the bipartite settlement dated 14.02.1995 was „with superannuation benefits‟, as explained in paragraph 3 hereinbefore, the applicant was entitled to the benefit of „encashment of privilege leave‟, which is one of the superannuation benefits.” 4. reliance placed by petitioner’s counsel upon circular of 8th july, 2015 (annexure p-10) is of no avail as the said circular relates to a period after petitioner was removed from service. the reference in this circular to a letter of 23rd april, 2007 is of no consequence because the claim petition was filed by respondent prior thereto. there is nothing on record to indicate that at the relevant time, the leave encashment was not payable to an employee, who has been removed from service. the afore- quoted reasoning of the learned tribunal has not been assailed before this court. so far as the delay in filing the claim petition is concerned, i find that there is no effective cross-examination of respondent on the delay aspect and so, on this ground, impugned award cannot be faulted with.5. in light of the aforesaid, this petition and the application are dismissed being without merit. april03 2018 s w.p.(c) 5798/2017 (sunil gaur) judge page 2 of 2
Judgment:

* + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: April 03, 2018 W.P.(C) 5798/2017 & CM241392018 STATE BANK OF INDIA ........ Petitioner

Through: Mr. Shiv K. Tyagi, Advocate versus RAVINDER KUMAR (THROUGH: LEGAL HEIRS) .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR Through: Nemo ORDER

(ORAL) Impugned Award of 19th September, 2016 grants `46,315.32/- with interest @10% per annum with costs towards leave encashment of 84 days of privilege leave due to deceased-workman on the date of his removal from service i.e. 22nd January, 2001.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that workman-Ravinder Kumar was removed from service by way of punishment and after delay of seven years, the claim petition had been filed. It is submitted that in a case of „removal from service‟, leave encashment is not payable. To submit so, attention of this Court is drawn to petitioner-Bank’s Circular of 8th July, 2015 (Annexure P-10).

3. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award and the material on record, I find that leave encashment has been granted to respondent by learned Tribunal while observing as under: - W.P.(C) 5798/2017 Page 1 of 2 “That since the removal of the workman from service vide order of the Banks Asstt. General Manager dated 22.01.2001, being under Clause 21(iv) (b) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 14.02.1995 was „with superannuation benefits‟, as explained in paragraph 3 hereinbefore, the applicant was entitled to the benefit of „Encashment of Privilege Leave‟, which is one of the superannuation benefits.” 4. Reliance placed by petitioner’s counsel upon Circular of 8th July, 2015 (Annexure P-10) is of no avail as the said Circular relates to a period after petitioner was removed from service. The reference in this Circular to a letter of 23rd April, 2007 is of no consequence because the claim petition was filed by respondent prior thereto. There is nothing on record to indicate that at the relevant time, the leave encashment was not payable to an employee, who has been removed from service. The afore- quoted reasoning of the learned Tribunal has not been assailed before this Court. So far as the delay in filing the claim petition is concerned, I find that there is no effective cross-examination of respondent on the delay aspect and so, on this ground, impugned Award cannot be faulted with.

5. In light of the aforesaid, this petition and the application are dismissed being without merit. APRIL03 2018 s W.P.(C) 5798/2017 (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE Page 2 of 2