Dismissed employee entitled to privilege leave encashment: Karnataka High Court

Regulation 67 does not permit taking away the employee’s right to encashment of privileged leave.
Karnataka High Court
Karnataka High Court(File photo | Express)
Updated on
2 min read

BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court said an employee who has been dismissed from service, is still entitled to encashment of privilege leave. Justice M Nagaprasanna passed the order while allowing a petition by G Linganagouda, former assistant manager of Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank, Kampli, in Hosapete taluk of Vijayanagar district, questioning the action of the bank.

Quashing the order dated December 13, 2017, and endorsement dated October 4, 2024, in which the bank rejected encashment of privilege leave, the court declared that the petitioner is entitled to privilege leave of 220 days that has accrued throughout his service.

Referring to the verdicts of the Bombay and Madhya Pradesh high courts, the judge said one stream which runs through the judgments is that the employee has the right to privileged leave under Regulation 61 of the Bank. Regulation 67 does not permit taking away the employee’s right to encashment of privileged leave. “I am in respectful agreement with what the division bench of both the high courts has held,” the judge said.

Pointing out Article 300A of the Constitution, the court said it is clear that any attempt of the employer to take away any part of terminal benefit, which in this case is leave encashment, is not approved. It is the right of an employee not only under the statute but even under the Constitution, the court said.

Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in 2012, alleging misconduct. An inquiry led to his dismissal from service with effect from December 19, 2014.

The petitioner submitted a representation to the bank seeking payment of his terminal benefits with particular reference to leave encashment accrued during his service for about 220 days, but it was denied on the ground that he has been dismissed from service for misconduct and therefore, the Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) did not permit payment of leave encashment to an employee who has been dismissed from service, citing Regulation 67 of the Bank. Hence, he moved the HC.

Related Stories

No stories found.

X
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com