Allowed

Johny.K.J v. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.

Kerala HC10 Apr 2018WP(C)/7293/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondent company to grant leave encashment to an employee who resigned after 27 years of service, holding that the specific restrictions in older pay revision orders did not apply to the current contract of employment which governed the resignation.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to reconsider and grant leave encashment within three months.

Johny.K.J Vs Fertilizers and Chemicals… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 7293 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

JOHNY K.J., KURIEDATH HOUSE, MNRA-056, NORTH EDAPPALLY P.O., KOCHI - 682 024.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.BALACHANDRAN (MANGALATH) SRI.RAJESH NAIR SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS :

¶10

1. FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR CORPORATE OFFICE, UDYOGAMANDAL, PIN 683501.

¶11

2. THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE, UDYOGAMANDAL, PIN 683501, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE.

¶12

3. THE GENERAL MANAGER(HR), HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD., FEDO BUILDING, UDYOGAMANGAL, KERALA STATE, PIN-683501.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 7293 of 2018 (J)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT P1	COPY OF SALARY STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE MONTH OF JULY, 2015
EXHIBIT P2	COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 05-05-2015 OF THE PTR
EXHIBIT P3	COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 07-05-2015 OF THE PTR
EXHIBIT P4	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16-06-2015 OF ACCEPTANCE OF RESIGNATION OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P5	COPY OF A LETTER DATED 14-12-2017 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT COMPANY
EXHIBIT P6	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05-01-2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7	COPY OF ORDER NO.106/8/2000-HR-1 DATED 11-07-2001
EXHIBIT P8	COPY OF MANAGERIAL PAY REVISION ORDER DT 28--08-2001
EXHIBIT P9	COPY OF MANAGERIAL PAY REVISION ORDER DT 14-08-2010
EXHIBIT P10	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11-01-2017 IN WP(C) NO. 31700/2014

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

NIL

¶22

TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE

16.4.2018

P.V.ASHA J.

W.P.(C).No.7293 of 2018

¶27

------------------------------------- Dated this the 10^th day of April, 2018

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The petitioner, who resigned from the service of the respondents, is aggrieved by the denial of the benefit of leave encashment on the ground that he had resigned from service.

¶30

Petitioner worked under the respondents

¶31

for 27 years till he tendered resignation which was accepted on 02.05.2015 as per Ext.P4 letter. He had to his credit 300 days of privileged/paid leave and 231 days of Medical leave. Petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation, requesting for leave encashment. He had also pointed out the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C).No.31700 of

¶32

W.P.(C).No.7293 of 2018

¶33

¶34

2014, in which this Court declared the entitlement of a similarly situated person who resigned from service from the respondent Company for leave encashment. As per Ext.P6 letter, the respondents informed the petitioner that the leave encashment was frozen as per Pay Revision Order No.106/8/2000-HR-I dated 11.07.2001 from the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, Government of India, except as a terminal benefit in respect of retiring and death cases and that those employees, who resigned from the Company, are not being paid leave encashment as terminal benefit. It was also stated that the judgment in W.P. (C).No.31700 of 2014, based on which, he requested

¶35

for leave encashment was pending consideration in Writ Appeal.

¶36

Petitioner has filed this writ

¶37

W.P.(C).No.7293 of 2018

¶38

¶39

petition pointing out that the writ appeal mentioned in Ext.P6 letter has already been dismissed as per judgment dated 27.02.2018 in W.A.No.507 of 2017. Petitioners in those cases had

¶40

tendered resignation in the year 2013, in order to join Kochi Metro Rail Limited, they were denied the benefit of leave encashment on the ground that it was frozen as per Ext.P8 the pay revision order. But seeing that the petitioners therein were governed by Rule 5.1 of the Leave Rules in which restriction is only to those employees who are dismissed from service for misconduct, it was held that any other employee on cessation of employment is entitled to get the proportionate earned leave due for the year, credited to his leave account, as provided in Clause 5.1(a) of the leave rules. It was also found that the said

¶41

¶42

W.P.(C).No.7293 of 2018

¶43

benefit is not frozen in Ext.P9 pay revision order

¶44

dated 14.08.2010 and no such restriction as contained in Ext.P8 pay revision order dated 28.08.2001, was available in the 2010 pay revision order, which was in force at the time of their resignation. The learned Single Judge had directed payment of the benefit of leave encashment to the petitioners therein. The Writ Appeal filed by the respondents was dismissed.

¶45

The reason stated in Ext.P6 order

¶46

while rejecting the request of the petitioner was that the leave encashment benefit was kept frozen in Ext.P8 pay revision order and that the Company had filed a Writ Appeal against Ext.P10 judgment. Since the petitioner resigned from service in the year 2015, the pay revision order applicable in his case is Ext.P9. His claim is based on clause

¶47

W.P.(C).No.7293 of 2018

¶48

¶49

5.1 of the Leave Rules as well as Ext.P9 pay revision order. Therefore the dictum laid down in in the judgment in W.P.(C).No.31700 of 2014, which is affirmed in the Writ Appeal would squarely apply in his case and his case would also be governed by the said judgment. The petitioner is therefore entitled to get the benefit of leave encashment benefit as claimed by him in Ext.P5 application.

¶50

Even though, the learned Standing

¶51

Counsel pointed out that the leave encashment

¶52

benefit is not a property and petitioner who resigned from service does not have any right to claim leave encashment, I find that the respondents do not have any right to deny the benefits available as per the Leave Rules as well as pay revision orders. The issue is already

¶53

W.P.(C).No.7293 of 2018

¶54

¶55

decided in Ext.P10 judgment which is affirmed in the Writ Appeal and it is binding on the respondents who are parties to those cases. The learned Standing Counsel made available a copy of the judgment in W.A.No.830 of 2017 against the judgment in W.P.(C).No.9111 of 2011. In that case resignation was during the period of the previous pay revision order Ext.P8 in which there was a specific provision restricting the payment. That judgment is not applicable in the present case, it is also pertinent to note that the claim of the petitioners therein, was rejected in that case and that writ appeal was filed by the employees who had resigned. Ext.P10 judgment was rendered after noticing the absence of any restriction in Ext.P9 pay revision order as was contained in Ext.P8 pay revision order. Therefore the respondents cannot

¶56

¶57

W.P.(C).No.7293 of 2018

¶58

be heard to raise any such contention again, in the case of the petitioner who resigned at the

¶59

time when Ext.P9 pay revision is in force.

¶60

In the result, the respondents are directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner in Ext.P5 and pass orders granting him the benefit of leave encashment, in the light of Ext.P10 judgment and the judgment dated 27.02.2018 in W.A.No.507 of 2017 within a period of 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶61

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶62

Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶63

Johny.K.J v. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Johny.K.J v. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Kumar T.V. Vs Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council

V.K.Viswambharan Vs State of Kerala

Neema C. Vs State Bank of Travancore

N.Sidarathul Munthaha Vs Sri Mohan Kumar

Nelson.a Vs Smt. Prasannakumari.S

Rajapandian.P Vs the Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.