Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 6th December, 2022
COL SUNIL KUMAR (RETD) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anand Shankar Jha and Mr. Abhilekh Tiwari, Advocates.
PRESIDENT, GOVERNING COUNCIL CGEWHO AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, Central Government Standing Counsel with
Ms. Priya Singh, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
1. Present writ petition lays a siege to an order/letter dated 29.04.2016, whereby Respondent No. 2 has declined the request of the Petitioner for grant of Service Gratuity and Leave Encashment for the service rendered by the Petitioner as Chief Executive Officer (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CEO’) with the Central Government Employees Welfare Housing Organization (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CGEWHO’) between the period 06.03.2009 to 05.03.2014 and for issuance of writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.2/CGEWHO to release the said benefits, along with interest w.e.f. 05.03.2014 till the date of actual payments.
2. First to the factual exposition. I abjure from a detailed narrative and refer to minimal facts, to the extent relevant and necessary and as captured in the writ petition. Petitioner retired from Indian Army in the rank of a Colonel on 28.02.2009 after a qualifying service of over 31 years. Petitioner was posted as a Chief Engineer (Project) Sea Bird, at the time of his retirement.
3. In the month of July, 2008 an advertisement was published in leading National dailies, inviting applications for appointment to the post of CEO in CGEWHO, in the pay scale of Rs.18400-500-22400 (pre revised) and other applicable allowances. It was stipulated in the advertisement that other terms and conditions of service will be as per the existing conditions of service applicable to CGEWHO employees. It was an open advertisement, enabling all those who were qualified and eligible to apply, with no reservation/special concession(s) extended to Ex-Central Government/Defence employees.
4. Being eligible, Petitioner applied for the post of CEO and after clearing the selection process, conducted by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, was appointed vide letter dated 06.03.2009.
5. The appointment was for a period of 5 years and Petitioner successfully completed his tenure on 05.03.2014. On 28.02.2014, i.e. few days prior to the expiry of the term of his employment, Petitioner initiated a ‘Note’ to the Joint Secretary (H) and Chairman, Executive Committee, CGEWHO, requesting release of his Service Gratuity and Leave Encashment of 132 days of accumulated earned leave as well as balance of increased Dearness Allowance from 01.01.2014 to 05.03.2014. After the tenure ended, Petitioner claimed his dues as per his entitlement under the ‘Conditions of Service of CGEWHO Staff’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘Conditions of Service’).
6. Service Gratuity was claimed under Para 14 of the Conditions of Service, as Petitioner had completed 5 years of service. Entitlement of Leave Encashment was predicated on past practice religiously followed in CGEWHO, citing examples of similarly placed former employees, who have been recipient of the said benefits. It is averred that by a Circular dated 12.08.2010, all employees were asked to file nominations for payment of Gratuity and Leave Encashment and Petitioner also filed his nomination on 20.08.2010.
7. Initially, there was no response to the several request letters and reminders sent by the Petitioner, save and except, making payment towards increased Dearness Allowance in April, 2015. Subsequently, however, by a communication dated 29.04.2016, CGEWHO informed the Petitioner that since he had already received Rs.10 lakhs towards retirement Gratuity as well as Leave Encashment for maximum period of 300 days, for his former military service, he was not entitled to payment of Gratuity and/or Leave Encashment from CGEWHO, as per the Central Government Rules. Having no option, Petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition.
8. Contentions of the Petitioner can be aptly encapsulated as follows:- (A) CGEWHO is an autonomous body registered as a Society under the Registration of Societies Act, 1860. Terms and conditions of its employees are decided by the Governing Council of the Society in terms of Rule 4(b) of Rules and Regulations of CGEWHO, provided in the Memorandum of Association. Petitioner is entitled to Service Gratuity on completion of 5 years of service, in terms of provisions of paragraph 14 of Conditions of Service as also Leave Encashment, in keeping with the past practice, since Rules are silent on the aspect of Leave Encashment. (B) Claim towards Gratuity has been rejected relying on Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1986 Order’), which is wholly erroneous, as ‘1986 Order’ is inapplicable to persons re-employed in posts, the expenditure of which is not debitable to the Civil Estimates of the Union Government, in terms of Para 4(b) of the said Orders. The issue of connection/relation of CGEWHO employees with Union Government and deduction of pension of Ex-Central Government employees/Ex-servicemen was deliberated in the Governing Council meeting held on 02.09.1998 and it was decided that since the expenditure of CGEWHO is not debitable to Civil Estimates of the Union Government, it would be legally in order not to deduct pension of such employees. Accordingly, an order was issued on 30.10.1998, with the approval of Secretary HUPA, President Governing Council and Ministry of Finance, not to deduct the pension of Ex-service personnel employed in CGEWHO. In the 50th Governing Council Meeting held on 09.01.2013, after due deliberation, it was reiterated and affirmed that employees of CGEWHO were not employees of the Central Government.
(C) Petitioner was not given any credit/concession of his previous military service in CGEWHO for the purpose of seniority, increments and salary fixation nor was his pension deducted and the employment in CGEWHO was totally independent of and delinked to his previous military service. Advertisement reflects that appointment was through an open competition, where anyone could apply without a background of service in any department of Central Government and no special concession(s) were extended to Ex-Central Government/ Defence employees.
(D) Several retired military officers employed with
CGEWHO, who were similarly placed as the Petitioner, have been paid Service Gratuity and Leave Encashment for their service with CGEWHO, despite the fact that they had availed these benefits from the Army/Air Force/Navy, as the case may be. Petitioner had initiated a detail ‘Note’ prior to his retirement, wherein he had referred to these cases and had also provided their names and requisite details. (E) Leave Encashment has been denied by taking refuge under Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) O.M. dated 24.05.2011, paragraph 2 whereof states that as per DoPT O.M. dated 31.01.1986, appointment of an officer in a Central Public Enterprise (‘CPE’), after acceptance of his technical resignation from the Government is treated as ‘immediate absorption’ and he is entitled to Leave Encashment of maximum 300 days. Reliance on this O.M is wholly misplaced, as Petitioner did not join CGEWHO on ‘immediate absorption’ basis upon submitting technical resignation in the Army. Petitioner completed his full term of service in the Army and retired on superannuation on 28.02.2009, whereafter he applied for the appointment of CEO in an open competition. The concepts of ‘immediate absorption’ and ‘technical resignation’ have been incorrectly interpreted by the Respondents and have no application to the case of the Petitioner.
9. Per Contra, contentions raised by learned counsel for the Respondents are as follows:a) CGEWHO is under the control of Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India, though it is an autonomous body. Terms and conditions of service of the employees of the organization insofar as they relate to pay, allowances and other financial matters are determined in accordance with Financial Rules and Regulations of the Government of India and being an appellation of the Union Government, CGEWHO is bound by the said Rules. b) Petitioner’s appointment to the post of CEO was made by the Government of India, with the approval of Appointments Committee of the Cabinet and thus his service conditions will be governed by the Financial Rules of the Government. Letter dated 06.03.2009 issued by the Government of India to the Military Secretary Branch, Integrated Headquarter of MOD (Army), clearly stipulates the pay scales and allowances admissible to the Petitioner as per the CGEWHO Rules and nowhere provides entitlement to Leave Encashment and Retiring Gratuity to the holder of the post of CEO, after demitting office at the end of 5 years of contractual service, having received full amount of Gratuity and Leave Encashment for the military service rendered. c) Appointment of the Petitioner to the post of CEO in CGEWHO is ‘re-employment’ and the mere fact that it was through the mode of open competition, does not alter the situation. Paragraph 13 of the ‘1986 Order’ provides that reemployed officers shall not be eligible for any Gratuity for the period of re-employment, except in cases covered under Rules 18 and 19 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 and corresponding Rules of Defence Service Regulations. Expenditure of CGEWHO is debitable to the Civil Estimates of Union Government and therefore, clearly the 1986 Order is applicable, contrary to the contention of the Petitioner. Case of the Petitioner is neither covered under Rule 18 nor under Rule 19 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972. Rule 19 deals with counting of Military Service rendered before civil employment and provides that if a Government servant is reemployed in a civil service after rendering Military Service, he may on his confirmation in a civil service or post opt either: (a) to continue to draw the military pension or retain Gratuity received on discharge, in which case his former Military Service shall not count as qualifying service; or (b) cease to draw the pension and refund the pension already drawn and the amount of Retiring Gratuity including Service Gratuity, if any. In the present case, Petitioner has not chosen to count previous Military Service as qualifying service and thus, Rule 19 does not apply. d) Minutes of the meeting of the Governing Council of CGEWHO dated 28.09.1992, relating to leave encashment, provide that accumulation and encashment of leave shall be regulated as per the Government of India orders and therefore, no action can be taken by CGEWHO contrary to the Government of India Rules and Instructions in this behalf. Petitioner had placed reliance on the 50th Governing Council meeting of CGEWHO held on 09.01.2013, wherein it is noted that employees of CGEWHO are not Central Government employees. The reliance is misplaced inasmuch as no doubt, CGEWHO manages its own affairs and is a registered society run through its Governing Council, however, pay and allowances and retiral benefits cannot be granted contrary to the Financial Rules of Government of India. e) Petitioner has placed heavy reliance on a ‘Note’ initiated by the Petitioner prior to his retirement, seeking Leave Encashment and Gratuity and has also cited examples of officers allegedly similarly placed, to whom these benefits have been disbursed, however, the ‘Note’ is a departmental note prepared by the Petitioner himself, just 4 days prior to his demitting the office of CEO and is a self-serving document, of no consequence. The ‘Note’ is not approved by the Competent Authority and in any case, cannot be relied upon if what is stated therein runs contrary to the Rule position. No doubt, a few similarly placed retired Defence Officers have received the benefits sought by the Petitioner, however, the same were inadvertently granted and it is a settled law that Courts cannot be called upon to perpetuate a wrong. A Government employee is entitled to receive Leave Encashment for a maximum period of 300 days and maximum Gratuity of Rs.10,00,000/- during the entire service and thus having availed all these benefits upto the maximum permissible limits, Petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the present petition.
10. Responding to the arguments of the Respondents, learned counsel for the Petitioner, in rejoinder, contended as follows:a) Entitlement to Gratuity and Leave Encashment of the employees/staff of CGEWHO is not governed by Government of India Rules but is regulated by the ‘Conditions of Service’ of CGEWHO, approved by the Governing Council in its meeting dated 07.12.1990 and promulgated on 19.03.1991 and therefore, rejection of the claims of the Petitioner is unjust and arbitrary. Respondents have relied upon Annexures-I and II annexed with the impugned letter dated 29.04.2016. Annexure-I is an O.M. dated 24.05.2011 issued by DoPT and pertains to personnel taking appointments in the Central Public Enterprise on ‘immediate absorption’ basis, which is not the case here and the O.M. is therefore inapplicable. Annexure-II is merely a photocopy of Para 13 of 1986 Order which is also inapplicable, as the expenditure of CGEWHO is not debitable to the Civil Estimates of the Union Government and this stand is fortified by the minutes of meeting of the Governing Council dated 02.09.1998. b) Appointment order of the Petitioner dated 06.03.2009, issued by the Ministry of HUPA, clearly stipulates that other terms and conditions relating to service matters shall be in accordance with Rules and Regulations and By-laws of CGEWHO, as amended from time to time. Petitioner served for a period of 5 years with CGEWHO and is therefore entitled to Gratuity, as provided in para 14 of the Conditions of Service of CGEWHO, wherein no difference exists between those joining CGEWHO from the Defence Forces or other Central Government Departments after retirement and those who do not possess this background. c) The ‘Note’ initiated by the Petitioner may not have been approved by the Competent Authority, however, its reference was crucial to draw attention to the relevant Rules, obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI’) as well as examples of officers, who were similarly placed and have been given benefits, sought by the Petitioner. It is not open to the Respondents to take a position that grant of Gratuity and Leave Encashment to similarly placed officers was a mistake, since payments are released after pre-audit of the bills and if any mistake escapes the scrutiny of pre-audit, it is detected in the post-audit of accounts and no such audit objection, to the best of knowledge of the Petitioner, was ever raised with respect to disbursements to the previous CEOs, referred to by the Petitioner, illustratively.
11. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and examined their rival contentions.
12. From the narrative of facts, it is ubiquitously manifest that Petitioner retired from the Indian Army in the rank of Colonel w.e.f. 28.02.2009. In July, 2008, CGEWHO published an advertisement inviting applications for the post of CEO and from a bare perusal of the advertisement, it is evincible that applications to fill up the vacancy of the CEO were invited from all eligible candidates and were not restricted to Ex-Government/Defence employees. Petitioner is also right in contending that no reservation or concession was extended to any of these categories in the process of selection. Petitioner cleared the selection process and was appointed for a period of 5 years ending on 05.03.2014. Copy of the advertisement filed by the Petitioner is placed below, for ready reference:-
13. It is equally undisputed that CGEWHO is an autonomous body registered as a Society under the Registration of Societies Act, 1860. Insofar as terms and conditions of its employees are concerned, they are decided by the Governing Council of the Society, in terms of Rule 4(b) of Rules and Regulations of CGEWHO, provided in the Memorandum of Association. Rule 4(b) provides that the management of the affairs of the Society shall vest in the Council and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, Council shall carry on the functions as prescribed therein, one of them being approval of the requirement of staff and their terms and conditions of service. Petitioner has placed on record copy of Instruction No. 5 dated 19.03.1991, whereby ‘Conditions of Service’ of the staff of CGEWHO were promulgated, after approval by the Governing Council in its meeting dated 07.12.1990.
14. The pandect providing for Gratuity is Instruction No.5 encompassing within it the ‘Conditions of Service’, which comprehensively provide the modes of selection, age of retirement, modes of termination, pay and allowances, deputation and absorption and Gratuity and Provident Fund etc. Para 13 provides that no pension is admissible to the staff, however, poignant provisions of Para 14 stipulate that Gratuity will be admissible to the staff upon rendering service for a period of 5 years and above, in accordance with Government of India Rules. Para 14 is extracted hereunder for ready reference: “GRATUITY: Gratuity will be admissible to the staff in accordance with the following formula: Period of service Amount of Gratuity (a) Less than 5 years.. NIL (b) 5 years and above.. As per Government of India Rules after 5 years of service”
15. It is thus palpably clear that the employees of CGEWHO are entitled to Gratuity, on rendering minimum 5 years of service, as per Government of India Rules in that behalf. Petitioner has, however, been denied benefit of Gratuity on the ground that Gratuity is a one- time payment and having received Rs. 10 lakhs, at the time of his retirement from the Army, Petitioner cannot lay a claim again. Albeit the impugned order does not shed much light on the backdrop to the denial of Gratuity, but what is discernible from the counter-affidavit is that Respondents’ endeavour is almost entirely predicated on Annexure-II to the impugned order, which includes a letter dated 11.04.2016, authored by Deputy Director and HoD (Admin) of CGEWHO, addressed to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation as well as a copy of the ‘1986 Order’.
16. Centripodal issue that strikingly emerges is whether the DoPT Instruction i.e. ‘1986 Order’ is at all applicable to CGEWHO, enabling the Respondents to invoke Para 13 thereof, to reject Petitioner’s claims. Be it noted that the said Para is numbered as ‘Para 14’ in the current edition of Swamy’s Compilation, however, since in the pleadings and impugned order, the same is described as Para 13, it is so referred to in the present judgment, to avoid any confusion. Extract of the relevant Para is as follows, for ready reference: “Gratuity/Death/Retirement Gratuity.– Re-employed officers shall not be eligible for any gratuity/death/retirement gratuity for the period of re-employment except in those cases covered in Rules 18 and 19 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and corresponding rules of the Defence Service Regulations.”
17. Para 2 of 1986 Order deals with ‘Application’ of the Order and provides that save as otherwise provided in this Order, it shall apply to all persons who are re-employed in Civil Services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union Government after retirement on pension, Gratuity and/or Contributory Provident Fund benefits from the services of the Union Government, State Governments and Union Territories and Public Sector Undertakings etc. Para 2(4)(b) further stipulates that this Order shall not apply to persons reemployed in posts, expenditure of which is not debitable to the Civil Estimates of the Union Government. Para 2(4)(b) of the 1986 Order is as follows:- “(4) These orders shall not, however, apply to - …… (b) Persons re-employed in posts, the expenditure of which is not debitable to the Civil estimates of the Union Government;”
18. It is a categorical stand of the Petitioner that the expenditure of the pay and allowances of CGEWHO is not debitable to Civil Estimates of the Union Government and in support thereof, reliance is placed on the Minutes of the meeting of the Governing Council dated 02.09.1998. Perusal of the Minutes, which have been appended to the rejoinder, shows that under the Agenda relating to non-deduction of pension of ex-Central Government employees/ex-service personnel, employed in CGEWHO, it is noted that the expenditure of CGEWHO is not debitable to Civil Estimates of Union Government and the posts of the organization are not connected with affairs of the Union Government. Premised on this stand, it was decided that it would be legally in order not to deduct pension of such employees. Therefore, in this view, 1986 Order is inapplicable to the present case and Para 13 thereof cannot be invoked by the Respondents to deny the benefit of Gratuity to the Petitioner. Relevant part of the Minutes dated 02.09.1998 is as follows:- “Item Non-Deduction of Pension from Ex-Service Personnel employed in CGEWHO The matter regarding non-deduction of pension pertaining to ex- Central Govt employees/ ex-service personnel employed in the Addl Secretary (Expenditure), Shri M V Iyer, who was not present in the Governing Council meeting held earlier on 27th Jan 97, wherein it was agreed that the pension need not be deducted. The Addl Secretary (Expenditure) stated that the expenditure of CGEWHO is not debitable to the Civil Estimates of the Union Govt and the posts of CGEWHO are not connected with the affairs of the Union Govt and it would be legally in order not to deduct pension of such employees. It was, therefore, decided that the pension of ex-Govt employees/ Defence Services personnel employed in the CGEWHO will not be deducted. The President, Governing Council desired that the Addl Secretary (Finance) & FA, may take approval of the same on file from A S (Expenditure) & put up to the the President, Governing Council.”
19. Going a step further, even assuming that the expenditure of CGEWHO is debitable to Civil Estimates of Union Government, Respondents will have to satisfy the second condition for applicability of the said Order i.e. Petitioner was re-employed with CGEWHO, which burden, in my view, they have been unable to discharge. Petitioner was appointed pursuant to an open advertisement, contents of which reflect that his past service as a Defence officer was irrelevant and no concession/reservation/relaxation was extended on this count. No credit was given for the previous military service for increments, counting the service etc. and neither was the salary fixed in accordance with the mechanism provided under Para 4 of 1986 Order. In fact, it is significant to note that pursuant to the conscious decision taken in the meeting, aforementioned, pension drawn by the Petitioner from the Army was not ignored/deducted for the purpose of pay fixation in CGEWHO and nor was he given the option to count the former military service. Petitioner’s service is thus a fresh appointment, wholly unconnected with his past service and cannot be termed as re-employment. Thus, the Gratuity received by the Petitioner from the erstwhile employer cannot be an obstruction/ hinderance in his path to deny the said service benefit otherwise available to the employees of CGEWHO.
20. The stand of the Respondents is untenable for an additional reason. The advertisement, pursuant to which the Petitioner was appointed, extracted above, shows that the post of CEO carried a pay scale of Rs.18,400-22,400/- with other admissible allowances. Significantly, the Appointment Order dated 06.03.2009 mentions that terms and conditions, apart from the pay scale and allowances, relating to service matters, shall be in accordance with the Rules and Regulations and By-laws of CGEWHO, as amended from time to time and there is no proscription that the appointee will not be entitled to Gratuity etc. No carve out or exception exists in Para 14 of ‘Conditions of Service’ for non-grant of Gratuity in case of persons joining CGEWHO, after retirement from Army or any other Government service and none has been shown by the Respondents. Contention of the Respondents that CGEWHO cannot grant benefits, contrary to Financial Rules of the Government of India, is irrelevant, as no conflict exists in the two, necessitating resolution of a hiatus in the present case. Para 14 of the ‘Conditions of Service’ of CGEWHO provides Gratuity to employees of the organization on completion of 5 years of service, while the 1986 Order operates in a different legal regime concerned with pay fixation etc. of ‘re-employed’ Pensioners. Therefore, seen holistically, from the advertisement, offer of appointment, appointment order and ‘Conditions of Service’, more particularly, para 14 thereof, Petitioner, who has admittedly rendered 5 years of service with CGEWHO, is entitled to Gratuity and this neat legal nodus is answered in favour of the Petitioner.
21. The next seminal question that needs to be answered is whether Respondents are right in denying Leave Encashment to the Petitioner, who has accumulated 132 days of Earned Leave while working with CGEWHO. Vide the common impugned order dated 29.04.2016, request of the Petitioner for Leave Encashment was declined on the ground that Petitioner has availed Leave Encashment for 300 days at the time of his retirement from the Army and cannot lay a claim to Leave Encashment again. In denying the benefit of Leave Encashment, Respondents have placed reliance on Office Memorandum dated 24.05.2011, issued by the DoPT, which deals with encashment of leave to Government servants on their appointment in Central Public Enterprises. Petitioner did not join CGEWHO on immediate absorption basis upon submitting technical resignation with the Army and had admittedly completed his full tenure and retired on superannuation. The concepts of ‘technical resignation’ and ‘immediate absorption’ are wholly alien to the present appointment and reliance on DoPT OM dated 24.05.2011 as a ground to deny Leave Encashment is extraneous to the issue in question.
22. It is a common ground between the parties to the lis that there are no Rules for Leave Encashment in CGEWHO and the Rules applicable in Central Government are being followed for its grant. It is also the stand of the Petitioner that as a past practice, CGEWHO has been granting Leave Encashment to officers who are similarly placed as the Petitioner. Details of several such officers have been given in the ‘Note’ initiated by the Petitioner, prior to the end of his tenure and the examples are also alluded to in the writ petition and the rejoinder. This is equally true in respect of Gratuity.
23. The stand of the Respondents in this context is that grant of benefits of Leave Encashment and Gratuity to these officers was a mistake, which cannot be perpetuated. Factual position that obtains is that officers retired from the Army, Navy and Air Force, who joined CGEWHO post-retirement, after receiving Leave Encashment and Gratuity for their former military service, have been given both the benefits. Position now adopted by the Respondents that benefits were disbursed inadvertently or by mistake, cannot be accepted, for a simple reason that payments under different heads, pertaining to service benefits, are made to the employees in any Government service as well in CGEWHO only after pre-audit of the bills and even if any mistake escapes attention at the pre-audit stage, objections are raised at the stage of post-audit of accounts. As mentioned above, Petitioner has categorically averred that no audit objections have been raised in the Department with regard to the disbursement of Gratuity and Leave Encashment to several officers in the past, whose names are mentioned in the petition and are no different from the Petitioner. This averment is unrebutted and the disbursements in the past are, in my view, pointer to the fact that even CGEWHO understood the legal position as canvassed by the Petitioner. Thus, the Petitioner deserves to be granted Leave Encashment for the aforesaid reasons as also for the additional reason that he has, in fact, worked for CGEWHO in the period, for which leave has been accumulated.
22. The matter can be examined from another angle. Had the Respondents intended that the appointment of the Petitioner would not entail grant of Leave Encashment/Gratuity, the same should have been mentioned in the advertisement inviting applications, carving out a distinction between applicants, who are Ex-servicemen and the others with a different background. Once no such distinction/reservation was carved out in the advertisement and none exists in the offer of appointment or the appointment order, it is not open for the Respondents at this stage, after the Petitioner has completed his tenure, to deny him the benefits of his service, which are given to other employees of CGEWHO and have also been given to similarly placed officers employed after retirement from the Armed Forces. Had any such stipulation been provided in the advertisement, perhaps the Petitioner may have exercised the option to take up any other employment or re-employment.
23. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find merit in the contentions of the Respondents. The impugned order dated 29.04.2016 is hereby set aside, directing the Respondent No.2/CGEWHO to release the benefits accruing to the Petitioner on account of service Gratuity and Leave Encashment, for the service rendered with CGEWHO from 06.03.2009 to 05.03.2014, within a period of 3 weeks from today along with interest @ 6% per annum, calculated from the date they became payable till actual realization of the amounts.
24. Petition is allowed and disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.