JUDGMENT : Nelson Sailo, J. Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Kataki, the learned Standing Counsel, Assam Agricultural University appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. None appears for the respondent No.5. 2. It is seen that notice was issued to the respondent No.5 on 2 (two) occasions i.e. on 02.05.2015 and thereafter, on 17.08.2017 by registered post with A/D card. But, despite this, the respondent No.5 remains unrepresented till date and therefore, this Court has no option but to draw presumption of service upon the respondent No.5. 3. Brief facts of the case may be narrated at the outset. The petitioner was employed under the Assam Agriculture University at Jorhat (respondent Nos. 1 to 3) on being appointed as Scientist sometime in the year 1992. After having served for about 17 years under the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the petitioner applied and secured employment as Associate Professor (Soil and Water Conservation) in the Central Agricultural University at Imphal, Manipur (respondent No.5). The petitioner, therefore, submitted his resignation from the post held by him under the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and which was accepted vide order dated 03.04.2009 (Annexure-4). After issuance of his release order, the petitioner submitted an application for granting him lien to his earlier employment and thereafter, orders dated 27.01.2010 and 22.09.2010 (Annexures-5 & 6 respectively) were issued to him granting lien for one year each, summing up to 2 years. Finally, the resignation of the petitioner was accepted vide order dated 12.07.2011 (Annexure-8) w.e.f the date of his release for joining his new assignment under the respondent No.5. It may be noted that his date of release from his previous employment was accepted as 07.04.2009. 4. The petitioner upon joining his new employment submitted an application for his leave encashment as entitled to him under the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, vide his representation dated 22.06.2011 (Annexure-7). Although his service gratuity and lumpsum pension were transferred to the respondent No.5 after the petitioner joined his new assignment but his leave encashment was neither transferred nor paid to him. 1 to 3, vide his representation dated 22.06.2011 (Annexure-7). Although his service gratuity and lumpsum pension were transferred to the respondent No.5 after the petitioner joined his new assignment but his leave encashment was neither transferred nor paid to him. The petitioner on approaching the respondent No.5 was informed that in so far as his leave encashment was concerned, the same was to be paid by the previous employer as the same was not transferable in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of India in the Department of Personnel and Training vide OM 28016/5/85-ESTT (C) dated 31.01.1986. In fact, a communication in this regard was made by the Registrar of the respondent No.5, to the Registrar of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Despite the communication, the petitioner was denied his leave encashment and being aggrieved, he is before this Court. 5. Mr. P. Mahanta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner initially joined his new assignment with 2 years lien to his previous employment but, however, upon the acceptance of his resignation his lien with the previous employment ceased w.e.f. date of his release i.e. 07.04.2009, in terms of the order dated 12.07.2011 issued by the respondent No.1 to 3. Therefore, leave encashment due to the petitioner has to be paid to him w.e.f the date of acceptance of his resignation. Mr. P. Mahanta by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that the leave encashment has been denied by the petitioner in view of the provisions laid down under Rule 74 of FR & SR as well as relevant provision of the Leave Rules of 1934. He submits that the stand of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is only misconceived, inasmuch as, the provisions relied upon by them will only apply if the petitioner's service is borrowed by the respondent No.5 and not when his service permanently ceases with the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on his resignation and acceptance of the same. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner is only entitled to his leave salaries as per the guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training vide its Memorandum dated 31.01.1986 and a direction be issued to the respondent authorities concerned for release of leave salary of the petitioner. 6. Mr. P. Kataki, the leaned counsel for the respondent Nos. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner is only entitled to his leave salaries as per the guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training vide its Memorandum dated 31.01.1986 and a direction be issued to the respondent authorities concerned for release of leave salary of the petitioner. 6. Mr. P. Kataki, the leaned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, submits that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are not liable to pay leave encashment to the petitioner, inasmuch as, as per the resolution passed by the Common Pay Committee in the year 1999 and also as per the FR & SR applicable in the State along with the Leave Rules of 1934, encashment of leave salary is only permissible at the time of superannuation and as a onetime payment. In so far as the petitioner's service with the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is concerned, the same stood terminated on his resignation and therefore, by no means the same can be termed as superannuation from service so as to entitle him leave salaries. Mr. P. Kataki however submits that in so far as the leave account of the petitioner is concerned, the same was already transferred to the respondent No.5 and so was his service gratuity and lump-sum pension. 7. The learned counsel also submits that pursuant the communication of the leave account of the petitioner, the respondent No.5, apparently has accepted the same as no return communication was made to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. He, further submits that in so far as Leave Rules of 1934 is concerned and the Common Pay Committee recommendation, an employee is entitled to a maximum leave encashment of 300 days and that too, once in the entire service career. Since, the petitioner has not superannuated as on date, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are not liable to pay him any leave salary. 8. I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 9. As may be noticed, the issue to be decided is as to whether the petitioner will be entitled to draw his leave salary from the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on his resignation being accepted with effect from 07.04.2009. 10. The contention of the respondent Nos. 9. As may be noticed, the issue to be decided is as to whether the petitioner will be entitled to draw his leave salary from the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on his resignation being accepted with effect from 07.04.2009. 10. The contention of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is that in view of the Rule 74 of the FR & SR as well as the relevant provisions of Leave Rules of 1934, the leave amount of the petitioner should be transferred to the respondent No.5. In this connection, I have perused the resolution of the report of the Common Pay Committee, 1999 and the Assam Agricultural University, Revision of Pay Rules, 1999, produced by Mr. P. Kataki. As per the Revision of Pay Rules, 1999 the benefit of leave encashment is allowed to an employee at the time of his retirement and also to an employee who expires while in service. It further provides that the maximum period of accumulated earned leave that can be encashed at the time of retirement is limited to 300 days. Also in case of officers holding a tenure post, the facilities of leave encashment on completion of the term may be allowed subject to availability of accumulated earned leave which shall not be more than 1 (one) leave encashment during the whole life of service. The petitioner was released from his service under the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 w.e.f. 07.04.2009 and he joined the respondent No.5 on 08.04.2009. His resignation was finally accepted vide order dated 12.07.2011 w.e.f. the date of his release. Therefore, it can be seen that the petitioner was no longer an employee under the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 w.e.f 07.04.2009. As such, the concept of lending and borrowing his service cannot be conceived. From the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, what can be seen is that the entitlement of leave encashment of the petitioner is not totally denied by them. It is maintained that since the petitioner has not superannuated from service, he cannot be paid his leave salaries in view of the Revision of Pay Rules, 1999 but his leave account can be transferred at this stage. Mr. P Mahanta, the leaned counsel for the petitioner has also produced the Office Memorandum dated 31.01.1986 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. Mr. P Mahanta, the leaned counsel for the petitioner has also produced the Office Memorandum dated 31.01.1986 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. As per Office Memorandum, a Government servant taking up an appointment in a Central Public Enterprise will be entitled to encashment of earned lave to his grade at the time of acceptance of his resignation from Government service, subject to a limit of 180 days and that, half pay leave will stand forfeited. 11. In respect of service gratuity and lump-sum pension of the petitioner, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 forwarded the amount due to the petitioner to the respondent No.5 through communication dated 06.05.2013. Admittedly, the same will be added and counted on the pensionary benefits as may be entitled to the petitioner. It is a well known fact that upon retirement from a service, pensionary benefits entitled to an employee ordinarily includes service gratuity, monthly pension, group insurance savings etc. and leave encashment as well. Therefore, when service gratuity and lump-sum pension of the petitioner was transferred to the respondent No.5, there is no reason as to why his actual leave encashment payable to him cannot be transferred as well. As mentioned earlier, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have also not denied their liability but maintain that the amount can be encashed by the petitioner only upon his attaining the age of superannuation or on his retirement. 12. With the above position, I am considered view that the actual amount entitled to the petitioner towards leave encashment cannot be withheld by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 pending his superannuation. He no longer being in service with the respondent Nos.1 to 3, it would be incumbent upon them to deposit his entitlement with the respondent No.5. Since the respondent No.5 has not appeared in the case, we are not in a position to appreciate the guidelines followed by the respondent No.5 University in so far as leave encashment and its withdrawal is concerned. 13. In the result, upon considering the case in its entirety and in view of above finding arrived at, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to make an assessment of the leave encashment entitled to the petitioner and thereafter, to deposit the amount with the respondent No.5 for disbursal as and when permissible. 13. In the result, upon considering the case in its entirety and in view of above finding arrived at, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to make an assessment of the leave encashment entitled to the petitioner and thereafter, to deposit the amount with the respondent No.5 for disbursal as and when permissible. This exercise should be done and completed within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 14. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.