Background

The case arises out of disciplinary proceedings against Utpal Datta Talukdar, which resulted in his dismissal without compassionate allowance (pension and gratuity). After unsuccessful appeals and review petitions, Talukdar approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench, seeking release of his provident fund dues, group insurance scheme benefits and collection of leave. The CAT, through its order, directed the Railways to release his leave benefits. The Union of India challenged this order in the High Court.

Arguments

The Union of India relied on IREC Rule 504, which explicitly states that any claim for leave credits ceases from the date of termination, removal or resignation of a railway employee. She argued that the Tribunal erred in concluding that Rule 504 was not relevant to leave encashment requests.

On the other hand, the respondents based their arguments on IREC Rule 542(2)(b), which requires the authorities to credit accrued leave to the extent of 2½ days per completed calendar month up to the preceding month. dismissal. They argued that this indicated the right of the dismissed employees to encashment of leave. They also cited IREC Rule 550(B)(1)(ii), which addresses cash payment in lieu of leave in various situations. Further, they argued that since the dismissal order only explicitly suspended pension and allowances without mentioning leave payment, the benefit could not be denied.

Court reasoning

Firstly, in considering Rule 504 of the IREC alongside Rule 40 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993 (which states that dismissal entails forfeiture of past service), the court established a direct link between the confiscation of service and confiscation of leave. Since leave is acquired through service, the court held that the loss of past service necessarily entails the loss of accrued leave.

Second, the court reviewed Rule 542(2)(b), clarifying that it merely prescribes the method of calculating accrued leave and does not create a right to encashment of leave for terminated employees. Similarly, Rule 550(B)(1)(ii) was found to be inapplicable because it was not intended for regular employees like respondent.

Third, the court found that the CAT had fundamentally erred in finding that Rule 504 was not relevant to leave encashment. The court emphasized that the express language of the provisions implies the contrary and that any interpretation decoupling Rule 504 from the encashment of authorizations is untenable.

Fourth, the court rejected the argument that the refusal to encash the leave had to be explicitly mentioned in the dismissal order. It considered that such refusal is an automatic consequence of dismissal, arising from the loss of past service, and therefore does not require specific mention. The court clarified that the disciplinary authority is not required to make such observations while dismissing a railway officer. Accordingly, the court granted the motion and set aside the CAT’s order.

Decided on: 06-11-2024

Neutral quote: 2024: GAU-AS: 11018-DB (Union of India and Ors. v. Utpal Datta Talukdar)

Petitioner’s advice: Ms. B. Sarma

Defendant’s lawyer: Dr GJ Sharma

Click here to read/download the order