' QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI (MEMBER).---Heard the Advocates for the parties and perused the record.
2. The appellant had admittedly retired on attaining the age of superannuation. He retired on 31-3- 2003, after putting in a service of about 32 years. As per Revised Leave Rules, 1980, the appellant was entitled to encasnment of L.P.R. He had applied for that within time, but vide impugned order 28-1-2002, encashment of L.P.R. Was refused to him, stating that it was not approved by the competent authority. Instead of granting encashment of L.P.R., in the same order, L.P.R. Of 365 days was granted to the appellant w,e,f, 1-4-2002 to 31-3-2003. No reason has been given why the encashment of L.P.R. Was not approved. On the other, the appellant had admittedly not requested for grant of L.P.R. And he had served the respondent-Department continuously till his retirement 31- 3-2003 and for that he had regularly received his monthly salary. The learned counsel for the respondent stated that the appellant was not granted encashment of L.P.R. Due to his unsatisfactory record of service, but we find that no action was taken against the appellant for any misconduct, inefficiency or otherwise. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent has not impressed us. There, does not appear to be any reason on the part of the respondent for refusing to grant the encashment of L.P.R. To which the appellant was entitled under Revised Leave Rules, 1980 read with Finance Division's O.M. No,F.1(19)R-3/83, dated 11-7-1984.
3. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order, dated 21-8-2002, and the order of rejection of the departmental appeal, dated 6-4-2002. Consequently, we direct the respondent to pay to the appellant encashment of L.P.R. For a period of 180 days.
4. Order accordingly. Announced in open Court.
5. Copies of this judgment be sent to the parties under registered cover and to the relevant quarters as per Rule 21 of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974.