THE CHIEF ENGINEER, MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. PUNE ZONE AND ORSversusNANDKUMAR RAMDAS PATIL

Neeta Sawant                                                  41-WP-7256-2024.docx


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                       WRIT PETITION NO. 7256 OF 2024


The Chief Engineer, Maharashtra                                     ...Petitioners
State            Electricity     Distribution
Company Ltd., & Ors.


                    : Versus :


Nandkumar Ramdas Patil                                              ...Respondent



Mr. Vikrant Khare a/w. Mr. Kushal Shah i/b. Dr. Kshitija Wadatkar and
Associates, for the Petitioners.

Mr. A.S. Rao, for the Respondent.



                                           CORAM:         SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
                                            DATED:        1 OCTOBER 2026.
P.C.:


1)                The petition challenges order dated 2 December 2022
passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Pune partly allowing
Application (IDA) No. 12/2017 filed by the Respondent under the
provisions of Section 33C-2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D.
Act) and directing the Petitioners to pay to the Respondent amount of
leave encashment of Rs.5,27,371/- alongwith interest and costs of
Rs.5,000/-.
                                       PAGE NO. 1 of 4
                                   Thursday, 1 October 2026
Neeta Sawant                                                       41-WP-7256-2024.docx


2)                  Perusal of the letter dated 17 October 2015 sent by the
Petitioner clearly indicates that he has tendered ‘resignation ’.                     The
Respondent thus did not apply for voluntary retirement. What was
accepted on 16 November 2015 is also resignation and not retirement.
Respondent himself described his action/letter dated 17 October 2015 as
‘resignation’.           While producing the said letter through list of
documents, Petitioner again described the same as ‘resignation ’.


3)                  The Labour Court has unfortunately conflated the concept
of 'resignation' and 'voluntary retirement' by holding in para-20 of the
judgment as under :


               20] Considering the ratio of all the above judgments, the common
               principle laid in the above matters that for applying under section
               33C(2) of the Act the applicant had pre existing right. It is undisputed
               right. Now turning to the present facts, the opponents in this matter
               had admitted that the employee whose is retired is entitled for the leave
               encashment. The opponent relied on General Order No.114(P) dated
               23/08/19982 specifically laid down that an employee shall be eligible to
               leave    encashment      at     the    time    of     his   retirement    on
               superannuation/voluntary retirement/compulsory retirement but not on
               resignation/dismissal or discharge as a matter of punishment. The
               opponent specifically admitted that the applicant had taken voluntary
               retirement and it was not a punishment. It was further clarified by the
               opponent in is Correction slip No.34 dated 03/06/2016 the SR No.43(iii)
               that if services of an employee are terminated for whatever reasons
               before he has taken the entire leave to which he is eligible or having
               applied for and having been not granted he will be eligible to payment of
               his pay and allowance in lieu of the leave not availed of. Provided that if
               the employee quit service of his own accord or is dismissed or
               terminated or removed from service of MSEDCL as a punishment in
               disciplinary action, he will not entitle to any kind of leave encashment
               balance at his credit at the time of his dismissal or termination or
               removal of service. So, it is crystal clear that the leave encashment is the
               right of employee who had given voluntary resignation. It is pre-existing


                                            PAGE NO. 2 of 4
                                        Thursday, 1 October 2026
Neeta Sawant                                                      41-WP-7256-2024.docx


               and undisputed right of employee. So, the above referred case laws will
               not bar the present application.

4)                  Mr. Khare the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
relies on its order passed in General Order No.114(P) dated 23 August
1982, para-1 whereof reads thus :


               (1) An employee shall be eligible to encash leave at the time of his
               retirement     on     supernnuation/voluntary       retirement/compulsory
               retirement but not on resignation, dismissal or discharge as a matter of
               punishment if an employee against whom disciplinary encashment of the
               H.A.P. leave to his credit even if the charge against him is one for which
               the punishment of dismissal/discharge would be warranted. This
               encashment and commutation of leave (if earlier allowed to the
               employee) put together should not exceed 180 days in the entire service
               career.


5)                  Thus, leave encashment is payable only on retirement on
superannuation/voluntary retirement/compulsory retirement and the
same is not payable on resignation.


6)                  In my view therefore, the Labour Court has erred in
directing payment of leave encashment to the Respondent who has
clearly resigned from service.


7)                  Mr. Rao attempts to salvage the situation by inviting my
attention to the last sentence in the letter dated 17 October 2015 by
which the Respondent prayed for payment of amount of leave
encashment, gratuity etc. He submits that there is a misnomer while
describing the act of quitting the services and what was indeed
submitted was application for retirement. I am unable to agree. In
petitioner’s own application filed before the Labour Court, he himself
describes letter dated 17 October 2015 as resignation. In any case, in
                                           PAGE NO. 3 of 4
                                       Thursday, 1 October 2026
                      Neeta Sawant                                             41-WP-7256-2024.docx


                      application filed under Section 33C-2 of the I.D. Act, the Labour Court
                      was neither called upon to treat resignation as retirement nor the
                      Labour Court has done so. If Respondent believes that his resignation
                      was infact retirement, he his free to a declaration to that effect in
                      appropriate proceedings.


                      8)             In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated
                      2 December 2022 is liable to be set aside. The petition accordingly
                      succeeds. The order dated 2 December 2022 passed by the Labour
                      Court in Reference (IDA) No. 12/2017 is set aside. The Writ Petition is
                      allowed in the above terms.

         Digitally
         signed by
         NEETA
NEETA    SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date:                                                          [SANDEEP V. MARNE , J.]
         2026.10.05
         15:14:56
         +0530




                                                        PAGE NO. 4 of 4
                                                    Thursday, 1 October 2026