SADHAN KUMAR GUPTA, J. - (1.) The Petitioner while on employment of the Respondent No. 1 resigned on June 29, 1998. Despite repeated requests his resignation was not accepted contemporaneously. Ultimately he was relieved from service of the Respondent No. 1 with effect from June 30, 1998. The writ petitioner was duly paid his terminal benefit save and except the leave encashment amount for a sum of Rs. 50,250.00. Hence, this writ petition.
(2.) In terms of the letter of appointment appearing at pages 31-35 of the writ petition the writ petitioner was entitled to leave encashment once in every four years by surrendering his privilege leave not exceeding one month at a time. The letter of appointment, however, was silent as to when such amount would become payable to the Petitioner. It is significant to note that the Respondent No. 1 being a subsidiary of Allahabad Bank did not have any service rules at the relevant point of time.
(3.) According to the Respondent No. 1 since there was no prevalent service rules the relevant rules applicable to the employees of Allahabad Bank would become applicable. Since the bank rules did not provide for payment of leave encashment prior to retirement, the same was not admissible to the Petitioner because of his resignation. Initially repeated letters were written by the Petitioner, not a single one was replied to by the Respondents. The bank, however, by a belated letter dated December 29, 1999 informed the Petitioner's advocate that the Petitioner was not entitled to leave encashment benefit under any provision of law of the land.;