Introduction:

In a landmark ruling, the Madras High Court has affirmed that under the Tamil Nadu Leave Rules, 1933, a period of absence due to employment abroad should not be considered a break in service and must be counted for pension and other terminal benefits. The decision came in response to a petition filed by Rakkiyappan, an Assistant Professor at Bharathiar University, who challenged the University’s refusal to count his leave period, during which he was employed abroad, towards his pension and other benefits. The court’s ruling emphasized that while the leave period abroad is to be treated as extraordinary leave without pay, it should not disrupt the continuity of service for purposes of pension calculation and other entitlements.

Background:

The case arose when Rakkiyappan, an Assistant Professor at Bharathiar University, took a leave of absence to work as a Research Professor in South Korea. His request for leave was granted by the University; however, he was later informed that this period would not be considered as service and, therefore, would not count towards his accrued leave, pension, or other terminal benefits. This decision by the University prompted Rakkiyappan to seek legal recourse, leading to the filing of a writ petition with the Madras High Court.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Petitioner’s Argument:

Rakkiyappan, represented by Advocate N. Kavitha Rameshwar, argued that the University’s decision to exclude his period of employment abroad from the calculation of his service for pension and other benefits was contrary to the Tamil Nadu Leave Rules, 1933. He contended that according to the rules, which the University had adopted, an employee is entitled to up to five years of leave on Loss of Pay (LOP) during their service, and such leave should not be treated as a break in service.

Rakkiyappan highlighted that his employment in Korea was not merely a personal pursuit but was directly related to his professional growth and contribution to his field of expertise. He argued that the work he undertook abroad was beneficial not only to his own career but also to the University, as it enhanced his skills and expertise, which he would bring back to his academic role.

The petitioner also pointed out that the University’s decision was arbitrary and discriminatory, as it failed to recognize the broader purpose of such leaves of absence, which are often granted to employees to enhance their professional qualifications. He asserted that by denying him the right to have this period counted towards his service, the University was effectively penalizing him for seeking to improve his qualifications and contribute to his academic field.

Respondent’s Argument:

The respondents, represented by Mr. K. Surendran, Additional Government Pleader, and Mrs. V. Sudha, Standing Counsel for the University, argued that the decision to exclude the petitioner’s leave period from the calculation of his service was in line with University regulations. They maintained that while the petitioner was granted permission to work abroad, this period could not be counted as service for the purposes of pension or other terminal benefits because he was not actively employed by the University during this time.

The respondents further contended that the leave granted to the petitioner was an extraordinary leave without pay, and as such, it did not contribute to the accrual of service-related benefits. They argued that the University’s decision was based on established rules and that the petitioner had been informed of the consequences of his leave before it was granted.

The respondents also claimed that allowing the petitioner’s leave period to be counted as service would set a precedent that could lead to administrative challenges, as it might encourage other employees to seek similar exemptions without considering the financial and operational implications for the University.

Court’s Judgment:

After carefully considering the arguments presented by both sides, Justice Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court delivered a decisive judgment in favor of the petitioner. The court ruled that the University’s decision to exclude the petitioner’s leave period from his service for the calculation of pension and other benefits was unsustainable and in violation of the Tamil Nadu Leave Rules, 1933.

Justice Venkatesh emphasized that under the Tamil Nadu Leave Rules, an employee is entitled to avail up to five years of extraordinary leave on Loss of Pay during their entire service, and such leave should not be treated as a break in service. The court noted that the University had adopted these rules, and therefore, it was bound to follow them when calculating the petitioner’s service-related benefits.

The court further observed that the petitioner had sought and obtained permission from the University to work abroad, and this period was intended to enhance his professional skills and contribute to his academic qualifications. The court opined that it was unreasonable for the University to deny the petitioner the right to have this period counted towards his service when it was clearly in line with the rules governing leave.

Justice Venkatesh clarified that while the petitioner would not be entitled to any pay or allowances during his leave period, the leave should not be considered a break in service. The court highlighted that the purpose of extraordinary leave on Loss of Pay is to provide employees with the opportunity to pursue professional development opportunities without jeopardizing their service continuity.

In conclusion, the court quashed the University’s order and directed that the petitioner’s period of leave be counted as part of his service for the purposes of calculating his pension, accrued leave, and other terminal benefits. The court’s decision underscored the importance of adhering to established rules and regulations when making decisions that affect the rights and benefits of employees.

Conclusion:

The Madras High Court’s ruling in this case sets an important precedent for the treatment of leave periods for employees who seek professional development opportunities abroad. By affirming that such periods should not be treated as a break in service, the court has reinforced the principle that employees should not be penalized for pursuing opportunities that enhance their professional qualifications and contribute to their field of expertise. This ruling ensures that employees who take extraordinary leave for employment abroad can do so without fearing a loss of pension or other service-related benefits.