Maya Ram vs State Of Haryana & Anr.

“In any case, the argument that the petitioner is entitled to the gratuity under the Gratuity Act and at the same time is also entitled to 300 days of leave encashment cannot be sustained as the earlier resolution of the Board dated 11.10.2000 taken in its 142nd meeting held on 27.9.2000 as relied upon by the petitioner stood superseded by the resolution dated 27.9.2001 taken by the Board of Directors in their 146th meeting placed on record as Annexure R-3. As per the said resolution, the Board decided that the work charge staff be paid the gratuity under the Gratuity Act and the leave encashment shall be restricted to 30 days as it used to be prior to 1.6.1992. Moreover, the issue is no more res-integra in view of the judgment rendered by this case in RSA No.3767 of 2009 decided on 30.6.2010 titled as The Managing Director, Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation Limited, Chandigarh Vs. D.R.Grover and others wherein the specific question of law for determination was whether the plaintiffs in the said RSA were entitled to encashment of earned leave of 300 days as per the State Civil Services Rules inspite of having taken the gratuity under the Act. The said question was duly answered by holding that an employee can either have gratuity under the Act and leave encashment of 30 days only or can have gratuity under the Civil Services Rules of the Government with leave encashment of 300 days. The relevant and operative part of the said judgment reads as under:-

“Following substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal :-

“Whether plaintiffs are entitled to encashment of earned leave for 300 days, as per State Civil Services Rules in spite of having taken the gratuity under the Act ?”

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the aforesaid question stands authoritatively determined in favour of the appellant by Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 25.03.2004 in C.W.P. No.6866 of 2002 titled Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewells Corporation Limited, Chandigarh vs. Tilak Raj Sharma and others.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the aforesaid judgment dated 25.03.2004 is not applicable to the instant case as the plaintiffs have not exercised option pursuant to instructions dated 27.05.1992 and therefore, in view of instructions Ex.D-8 and Ex.D-9, the plaintiffs are entitled to encashment of earned leave for 300 days, as per rules of Government adopted by HSMITC.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions.

Judgment in the case of Tilak Raj Sharma (supra) is fully applicable to the instant case. It has been categorically laid down in the said case that an employee cannot have best of both the worlds. The employee can either have gratuity under the Act with encashment of leave for 30 days or can have gratuity under the Civil Services Rules with leave encashment of 300 days. Under instructions Ex.D-8, as reproduced at page 57 of the paper book in the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court, HSMITC adopted rules of Government for purpose of gratuity, leave encashment and other purposes. It is thus manifest from the instructions that an employee can either have gratuity under the Act with leave encashment of 30 days only or can have gratuity under the Civil Services Rules of the Government with leave encashment of 300 days. However, the plaintiffs cannot have best of both the worlds. The plaintiffs have admittedly received the gratuity under the Act and therefore, they are entitled to leave encashment for 30 days only.”

In view of the above discussion, as well as the question being no more res-integra, the present writ petitions are dismissed being devoid of merit.”