Suraj Prasad vs The Union Of India & Ors.

Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Judicial Member

The applicant has filed this O.A. seeking the relief(s), which are quoted herein below: -

The facts of the case, as per pleadings in the O.A., are that the applicant was initially appointed on the post of Ticket Collector on 22.08.1987 and while in service, he was promoted as Chief Ticket Inspector and retired on 31.01.2023 in the grade pay of Rs. 4800/- on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years. The applicant was taken the leave of LAP for the period of 02.11.2011 to 03.11.2011 and on 04.11.2011 was rest but the respondent no. 4 illegally treated 04.11.2011 as leave of LAP on payment of leave encashment has not been paid to him for which the applicant is legally entitled after retirement. Applicant was medically leave on RMC for the period of 05.11.2011 to 15.11.2011 and 18.11.2012 but the aforesaid period have been illegally treated as leave in account of LAP by respondent no. 4 instead of LHAP as per the rules which are required to be made in LHAP and accordingly make the payment of leave encashment after retirement of the applicant but the same has not been paid to the applicant till date and same has been denied by means of impugned orders. The respondent no. 4 illegally made deduction in two time as leave in LAP for the period of 24.11.2006 to 25.11.2006 even actual leave was on 24.11.2006 and 25.11.2006 thus the same cannot be done one day more and it will not be deducted once and again as such act of respondent no. 4 is illegal and applicant is entitled for payment of leave encashment for the period of which deducted as leave in LAP and one day more has been illegally deducted as leave in LAP by respondent no. 4. The applicant was on duty for the period i.e. 04.02.2011 to 23.01.2011 but the said period has been illegally treated as leave in LAP by respondent no. 3 and 4 and after retirement, said period has been deducted from the total leave account of 300 of the applicant and after retirement payment of leave encashment has not been paid for the period of 04.02.2011 to 23.02.2011, thus as per the rules and law the applicant is legally entitled for payment of the same. The respondent no. 4 has illegally made deduction in LAP of the leave account of RMC on 08.07.2015 instead of LHAP which are apparently illegal. The respondents have paid the leave encashment after retirement of the applicant of 104 days only without verifying the complete leave account of the documents but he was entitled for more days of payment. The respondent no. 3 rejected the claim of leave encashment of the applicant vide impugned order dated 01.03.2023 by stating that the rightly payment has been made for the 104 days which has been send by the respondent no. 4. The applicant made representation dated 06.10.2023 for settlement of dispute in question with regards of the payment of leave encashment before respondent no. 3 with the copy to the vigilance department but same has not been settled till date by the respondents and same has been returned back original to the applicant without settlement of the dispute which act and conduct of the respondents is illegal as same cannot be returned back to the applicant without deciding the controversy as they have the authority to decide the controversy once the employee has raised his grievance under rules and law and require to take the decision in the matter for which conduct respondent No. 3 is liable for coercive action under law. Hence, he has filed the present O.A.

The respondents have filed their counter reply and pleaded that the applicant did not apply at that time of regularization of the RMC period from 05.11.2011 to 15.11.2011 and 09.11.2012 to 18.11.2012 into commuted leave. As a result, the aforesaid period was not regularized into commuted leave as per rules. It is submitted that the applicant has been wrongly credited two days leave for the period from 24.11.2006 to 25.11.2006 and no deduction has been made from the leave account of applicant for the period from 04.02.2011 to 23.02.2011 and of 08.07.2015. The competent authority after sympathetically considering the applicant’s application, approved the RMC period submitted by the applicant as commuted leave. It is further submitted that the regularization of RMC period could not be done previously due to applicant’s failure to submit the application on time. It is submitted that to regularize an employee's RMC (Railway Medical Sickness) period into commuted leave, a timely application must be submitted along with a railway ID. The applicant did not submit the application on time and for this reason the applicant itself responsible for not submitting application within time then the answering respondents in accordance with existing rules of department taken decision which is just, proper and legal in the eye of law. It is also submitted by the respondents that from the facts and submissions mentioned above, it is clear that the respondents have not committed any illegality or infirmity in the case of applicant hence, the O.A. is liable to be dismissed.

The applicant has also filed the rejoinder, reiterating the facts as contended in the pleadings of O.A.

Heard, counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record.

The reliefs prayed by the applicant are to direct the respondent no. 1 to 3 to pay the leave encashment of LAP (Leave on Average Pay) for the period of 04.02.2011 to 23.02.2011, 04.02.2011, 21.11.2006 to 25.11.2006 and RMC (Railway Medical Certificate) period 05.11.2011 to 15.11.2011 and 09.11.2012 to 16.11.2012 should be converted in LHAP (Leave on Half Average Pay) and make the payment of the same which has been illegally deducted from LAP. In support of his contention, the applicant has provided leave register and sickness certificate. However, no such application has been provided by the applicant of the relevant period for considering the LAP/RMC/LAHP. Certain pleas have been taken by the applicant regarding his working or on actual leave, which has not been duly registered in the leave register. This O.A. has been filed after the retirement of applicant, in the year 2025, as the applicant was retired on 31.01.2023. The said cause of action arose to the applicant only after getting the knowledge that after retirement the due amount, which other employees received for LAP/LAHP for number of days, was not made to him. Thereafter, he has moved an application on 06.10.2023 before the respondents mentioning therein that he has received only 104 days LAP and 196 days LAHP. The respondents’ contention is that the applicant has not moved any application during the relevant time to regularize the RMC leave medical sickness period into commuted leave as there is no such application along with railway ID of the applicant. Therefore, whatever pay of the absence period on account of his sickness, cannot be considered. However, after making an application approved the RMC period submitted by the applicant as commuted leave, as the regularization of RMC period could not be done previously due to applicant’s failure to submit an application on time. From record, it appears that the applicant has pleaded LAP for the period from 24.11.2006 to 25.11.2006 and RMC period from 05.11.2011 to 15.11.2011 and 09.11.2012 to 18.11.2012, which has been treated as leave on account of LAP instead of LAHP. However, I am not convinced with the argument made by the applicant’s counsel and in the absence of any material that any such application was moved by the applicant for that period, the claim of applicant after retirement cannot be acceded to and accordingly there is no merit in the O.A., which deserves to be dismissed.

In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the O.A. and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. All the pending MAs shall be deemed to have been disposed of.