Leave Encashment of Employee can not be withholded merely due to pending disciplinary proceedings
The Delhi High Court, in a judgment by Justice Jyoti Singh, has ruled in favor of a retired Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) professor, directing the release of his Leave Encashment with interest. The professor, Sachidanand Sinha, was charge-sheeted for allegedly participating in a one-day protest but was denied Leave Encashment and other retirement benefits by the university.
Background of the Case
Professor Sachidanand Sinha joined JNU as an Assistant Professor on April 4, 1988. In July 2018, a protest was organized by some faculty members, and he was accused of participating in it. A show-cause notice was issued to him in September 2018, followed by a chargesheet. Other teachers facing similar charges had approached the High Court, which stayed the inquiry proceedings.
Despite the stay, which remains in effect, JNU withheld Professor Sinha’s retirement benefits after his superannuation on August 31, 2022. He was only granted provisional pension, while Leave Encashment and Gratuity were denied.
Court Proceedings
Professor Sinha approached the Delhi High Court, seeking directions for the release of his Leave Encashment and Gratuity with 18% interest per annum. His counsel argued that:
- The chargesheet was related to a protest that caused no harm.
- The professor had retired, not been terminated.
- Under Rule 39(3) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, Leave Encashment could only be withheld if the Competent Authority determined that money was recoverable from the employee.
The university, however, had neither issued such an order nor proved any financial liability against the professor.
Court’s Observations
The Court ruled that withholding Leave Encashment merely due to pending disciplinary proceedings was not justified. Citing precedents like Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Prem Nath Manchanda and Satya Prakash v. BSNL, the Court reiterated that Leave Encashment could only be withheld if there was a possibility of financial recovery after the conclusion of proceedings.
Since no such determination was made, the Court held that the denial of Leave Encashment was illegal.
Judgment
The High Court directed JNU to:
- Release the Leave Encashment amount to Professor Sinha within six weeks.
- Pay 9% interest per annum on the arrears from the due date until the actual payment.
For the Gratuity, the Court granted the professor liberty to pursue the claim after the resolution of the related writ petition.
Conclusion
This judgment reinforces the rights of employees to retirement benefits and clarifies the limited scope of Rule 39(3) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, ensuring that benefits are not withheld without proper justification.
Case Title: Prof. Sachidanand Sinha v. Jawaharlal Nehru University
Counsel for Petitioner: Abhik Chimni, Pranjal Abrol, Maaroof, Gurupal Singh
Counsel for Respondent: Ginny J Rautray, Devika Thakur, Ranvijay Singh
