High Court of Karnataka Allows Writ Petition for PL Encashment Despite Dismissal — Penalty of Dismissal Does Not Forfeit Privilege Leave Encashment Unless Service Rules Expressly Provide. Leave encashment is a vested right and not forfeited by dismissal in the absence of express rule.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD In Favour of Accused
  • 10
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, G. Linganagouda, a former Assistant Manager of Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank (now Karnataka Gramina Bank), was dismissed from service as a penalty. He sought encashment of 220 days of privilege leave (PL) which was denied by the respondent bank through endorsements dated 13.12.2017 and 04.10.2024. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of those endorsements and a direction to pay PL encashment with interest at 10% from the date the amount became due. The court framed the issue as whether an employee dismissed from service is entitled to encashment of privilege leave. After hearing both sides, the court held that leave encashment is a vested right and not a bounty; it is not automatically forfeited by dismissal unless the service rules expressly provide for such forfeiture. Since the respondent did not point to any rule that forfeits PL encashment upon dismissal, the court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned endorsements, and directed the respondent to pay PL encashment for 220 days within six weeks, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of dismissal till payment.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Dismissal - Leave Encashment - Penalty of Dismissal - The issue was whether an employee dismissed from service is entitled to encashment of privilege leave - The Court held that leave encashment is a vested right and not forfeited by dismissal unless the service rules expressly provide for such forfeiture - The respondent's endorsements denying PL encashment were quashed (Paras 1-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether an employee who is imposed a penalty of dismissal from service is entitled to grant of encashment of privilege leave

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsements dated 13.12.2017 and 04.10.2024 are quashed. The respondent is directed to pay PL encashment for 220 days to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of dismissal till the date of payment.

Law Points

  • Privilege leave encashment is a vested right
  • not a bounty
  • penalty of dismissal does not automatically forfeit leave encashment unless rules expressly provide
  • service rules must be strictly construed for forfeiture of benefits
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (KAR) (02) 60

WP No. 100339 of 2025 (S-RES)

2025-02-19

M. Nagaprasanna

Sri Naganagouda M. Patil (for petitioner), Sri M.G. Kulkarni (for respondent)

G. Linganagouda

General Manager, Karnataka Gramina Bank

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging denial of privilege leave encashment after dismissal from service.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of endorsements dated 13.12.2017 and 04.10.2024 denying PL encashment, and direction to respondent to pay encashment of 220 days privilege leave with interest at 10%.

Filing Reason

Petitioner was dismissed from service as a penalty and was denied encashment of privilege leave by the respondent bank.

Issues

Whether an employee who is imposed a penalty of dismissal from service is entitled to grant of encashment of privilege leave.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that leave encashment is a vested right and not forfeited by dismissal. Respondent opposed the petition but did not point to any rule that forfeits PL encashment upon dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

Leave encashment is a vested right and not a bounty; it is not automatically forfeited by dismissal from service unless the service rules expressly provide for such forfeiture. In the absence of any rule to the contrary, the employee is entitled to encashment of privilege leave.

Judgment Excerpts

The issue that needs an answer in the case at hand is, whether an employee who is imposed a penalty of dismissal from service is entitled to grant of encashment of privilege leave.

Procedural History

The petitioner was dismissed from service. He sought PL encashment which was denied by endorsements dated 13.12.2017 and 04.10.2024. He then filed the present writ petition on 19.02.2025.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Writ Petition for PL Encashment Despite Dismissal — Penalty of Dismissal Does Not Forfeit Privilege Leave Encashment Unless Service Rules Expressly Provide. Leave encashment is a vested right and not forfeited by dism...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Family Court Order Striking Defence as Res Judicata in Divorce Case. Defence raised in divorce proceedings held barred by principles of res judicata due to prior decree in suit for declarati...