AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. There is a delay of one day in filing of the review petition.
The explanation of the delay has been given and we are satisfied with it. Thus, delay in filing the review petition is condoned as otherwise it is not seriously opposed by counsel for the respondent. The application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is accordingly allowed.
Heard on the review petition.
The review petition has been filed not only in reference to the cost of Rs. 75,000/- but even to seek review of the impugned order where judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal was challenged.
The direction of the Central Administrative Tribunal was on an Original Application preferred by the respondent- employee to challenge payment of leave encashment benefit for the leave earned by him while in service of State Government. The Central Administrative Tribunal accordingly issued directions to the petitioners ESIC to take back the amount of Rs. 1,54,628/- paid to the respondent-employee.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent-employee was earlier serving with the State Government. After tendering resignation, he was appointed by ESIC. The respondent-employee was thus entitled for payment of leave encashment earned while working with the State Government. The leave encashment was not carried forward. So far as leave earned in the service of ESIC is concerned, it would be counted separately and paid at the time of retirement.
This Court called upon the authority which took decision to file a writ petition to challenge the order of the Tribunal. It is for the reason that ESIC would be put to additional burden of leave encashment because if the earned leave of employee is carried forward then leave encashment would after deducting the payment already earned by the respondent from the State Government.
Learned counsel for the respondent initially contested the review petition but realising that payment of earned leave made by the State Government, if paid to him at this stage, would be beneficial. The only prayer is to make it clear that the earned leave while in the service of State would not be accounted for the leave earned in the services of ESIC. The clarification aforesaid is not required in view of the submission of learned counsel for ESIC.
It is admitted that the earned leave of the services of ESIC would be counted afresh for the benefit of leave encashment at the time of retirement.
Accordingly, we find reason to interfere in the order so as to review it. We set aside the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal for a direction to take back the amount of Rs. 1,54,628/- from the respondent-employee.
It would nullify the order sought to be reviewed. Accordingly, the employee would be entitled to retain the amount already paid out of the leave earned out of the services of State. He would be entitled to get separate benefit of leave encashment out of the services of the ESIC.
The Division Bench has imposed cost of Rs. 75,000/- when the question of authority to file the writ petition was raised and it could not be satisfied.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has satisfactorily explained the authority of Medical Superintendent to file a writ petition. We are satisfied with the aforesaid and otherwise, a contest to it has not been made by the non petitioner.
Accordingly, order dated 12.4.2018, imposing cost of Rs. 75,000/- is recalled. There would be no order as to costs on the petitioners in filing the writ petition.
The review petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid. Cheque of Rs. 75,000/- be returned to the petitioners accordingly.