JUDGMENT : 1. The present Intra Court Appeal is filed by the appellant – Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank against the order dated 13.08.2015 made in W.P.No.65178/2009 by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition directing the appellant Bank to immediately release the accumulated privilege leave standing to the credit of the respondent-petitioner upto the date of his resignation being accepted. It was further directed that the bank shall make payment within a period of six weeks, if not earlier and if the bank fails to make payment within a period of six weeks, interest shall accrue on such amount at 10% p.a. till the date of payment. (I) Facts of the case: 2. The respondent who is the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge filed W.P.No.65178/2009 for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 06.10.2008 made in No.A238/PHRDD/2008, passed by the Senior General Manager (PHRDD, P.B. Road, Dharwad) vide Annexure-G denying the privilege leave to him and for a direction to the Bank to pay privilege leave encashment benefit of 221 days in the interest of justice. It is the case of the respondent that he was appointed as Probationary Officer in the year 1984 and after completion 2 years of service, he was promoted as Junior Management Officer and subsequently promoted to the Middle Management Cadre in January 2000. The respondent was transferred to Gadag Betageri Branch as an Officer on 09.05.2007. On 12.11.2007, due to ill-health and personal problems, he resigned and the same was accepted by the appellant-Bank. On 25.08.2008, he requested the appellant that as on the date of his resignation which was accepted on 21.03.2008 and was relieved on 23.08.2007, he has 221 days privilege leave to his credit and to settle the privilege leave encashment benefit etc. The appellant bank by the impugned endorsement denied privilege leave encashment benefit on the ground that there is no provision for payment for resigned staff as per Annexure-G. Hence, the writ petition came to be filed for the relief sought for. (II) Order by the learned Single Judge: 3. The appellant bank by the impugned endorsement denied privilege leave encashment benefit on the ground that there is no provision for payment for resigned staff as per Annexure-G. Hence, the writ petition came to be filed for the relief sought for. (II) Order by the learned Single Judge: 3. Learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties, by the impugned order dated 13.08.2015 allowed the writ petition and quashed the endorsement issued vide Annexure-G and directed the Bank to release the amount immediately as accumulated privilege leave standing to the credit of the petitioner up to the date of his resignation being accepted within a period of six weeks, failing which, it will carry interest at 10% p.a. on the amount till the date of payment. Hence, the present intra Court appeal is filed by the Bank. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. (III) Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants: 5. Shri S.S. Yadrami, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition, directing the Appellant-Bank to pay ‘privilege leave’ to the credit of the petitioner is erroneous and contrary to the materials on record and same cannot be sustained and is liable to be setaside. He would further contend that Regulation 64 of the Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations – 2005 stipulates encashment of privilege leave namely (i) where an officer or employee dies in service; (ii) where a staff retires from the Bank’s service; & (iii) where the services of the officer or employee are terminated owing to retrenchment. Only under those circumstances, the officers or employees are entitled to privilege leave and therefore, the respondent would not be entitled to privilege leave. The said aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. 6. Learned counsel would further contend that no Regulation provide for encashment of privilege leave to a Officer or employee who resigns, since the regulations are formulated and adopted as per the guidelines of NABARD; the order declining the privilege leave is in accordance with the service regulations of the appellant-bank. In the absence of such regulations, the learned Single Judge is not justified in allowing the writ petition. In the absence of such regulations, the learned Single Judge is not justified in allowing the writ petition. He would further contend that the appellant Bank issued a Circular dated 05.08.2015, wherein the appellant-Bank introduced the facility of Sabbatical Leave to the women employees and also permitted for extension of leave encashment to the employees resigning after 20 years of qualifying service, wherein it is stated that the officer or employee shall be paid a sum equivalent to the emoluments in respect of privilege leave to the extent of half of such leave to his credit on the date of cessation of service, subject to maximum of 120 days. The order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be implement able. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ appeal filed by the Bank by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. (IV) Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent: 7. Per contra, Shri K.S. Korishettar, learned counsel for respondent while justifying the order passed by the learned Single Judge contended that no provision which prohibits such payment and denial of privilege leave is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, when the Bank is giving privilege leave to an officer or employee who dies in service; when a staff retires from the Bank’s service; & when the services of the officer or employee are terminated owing to retrenchment, the denying of privilege leave to the petitioner is contrary to the regulations. Therefore, he submits that the order of the learned Single Judge is just and proper. He would further contend that the Circular dated 05.08.2018 relied upon by the counsel for the appellants in the present appeal restricting the maximum emoluments in respect of privilege leave is 120 days only prospective and will not be applicable to the petitioner, who resigned from the post on 12.11.2007 owing to ill-health and in the interest of the bank. Therefore, he is entitled to 221 days privilege leave, which was in his credit. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the appeal. (V) Point for determination: 8. Therefore, he is entitled to 221 days privilege leave, which was in his credit. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the appeal. (V) Point for determination: 8. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that would arise for our consideration in the present appeal is: “Whether the order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition, directing the appellant bank to pay privilege leave of 221 days to the respondent is justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case?” (VI) Consideration: 9. It is undisputed fact that the respondent was appointed as Junior Management Officer in the appellant bank on 10.01.1984 and subsequently, he was promoted to Middle Management Cadre and there was a transfer on 09.05.2007 to Gadag-Betageri Branch. It is also not in dispute that due to ill-health, the respondent submitted resignation to his post on 12.07.2021 after completion of his 20 years of service. The resignation was accepted by the Bank on 21.03.2008 and was relieved on 23.08.2008 and paid all service benefits accrued as per Service Regulations. It is also not in dispute that the respondent made a representation on 25.08.2008 requesting the Bank to pay privilege leave accumulated to his credit i.e. maximum 240 days as per the Regulations 59 and 64 of the Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations – 2005. By Annexure-G in the writ petition, it was rejected stating that there is no provision to pay such privilege leave. 10. It is relevant to consider at this stage that the respondent after working for 20 years of service in the appellant-Bank without any stigma, owing to ill-health, has resigned on 12.07.2007. Regulation 59 ‘privilege leave’ and Regulation 64 ‘Lapse of Leave’ of the Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank (Officers & employees) Service Regulations, 2005, reads as under: “59. Privilege Leave: (a) Scale on which Privilege leave is earned: (1) An officer or employee shall be eligible for privilege leave computed at one day for every 11 days of service on duty. Provided that at the commencement of service no privilege leave may be availed of before completion of 11 months of service on duty. (2) The period of privilege leave to which an officer of employee is entitled at any time shall be the period which he has earned less the period availed of. Provided that at the commencement of service no privilege leave may be availed of before completion of 11 months of service on duty. (2) The period of privilege leave to which an officer of employee is entitled at any time shall be the period which he has earned less the period availed of. (3) An officer or employee on privilege leave shall be entitled to full emoluments for the period of leave. (4) Privilege leave may be accumulated up to 31st December, 1989 fro an aggregate period upto 180 days and from 1st January 1990, the privilege leave may be accumulated upto not more than 240 days.” “64. Lapse of leave: All leave shall lapse on the death of an officer or employee or if he ceases to be in the service of the Bank. Provided that where an officer or employee dies in service, there shall be payable to his legal representatives, sums which would have been payable to the officer or employee as if he has availed of the privilege leave that he had accumulated at the time of the death subject to Sub-Regulation (a)(4) of Regulation 59. Provided further that where a staff retires from the Bank’s service, he shall be eligible to be paid a sum equivalent to the emoluments for the period of privilege leave he had accumulated subject to Sub-regulation (a)(4) of Regulation 59. Provided also that in respect of the employee where his services are terminated owing to retrenchment, he shall be paid pay and allowances for the period of privilege leave at his credit.” 11. A conjoint reading of the said provisions makes it clear that: (i) when an officer or employee dies in service; (ii) when a staff retires from the Bank’s service; & (iii) (iii) when the services of the officer or employee are terminated owing to retrenchment, the legal representatives of officer or employee are entitled to the allowance for the period of privilege leave at his credit. On a plain reading of the said regulations, it is clear that there is no indication that the officer or employee, who resigned the post is on a different footing, if privilege leave had accumulated to his credit on the date of resignation and if there was no other reason for employer to withhold such benefit, there cannot be any such regulation to deny the benefit of privilege leave to the person, who worked more than 20 years. On careful reading of the said regulations clearly indicates that there was no prohibition for payment of privilege leave encashment benefits to the officer or employee who resigned after long service of 20 years. The privilege leave as contemplated under the Regulation 59(a)(1) contemplates an officer or employee shall be eligible for privilege leave computed at one day for every 11 days of service on duty provided that at the commencement of service no privilege leave may be availed of before completion of 11 months of service on duty. Regulation 59(a)(4) contemplates the 31st privilege leave may be accumulated upto December 1989 for an aggregate period upto 180 days and from 1st January 1990, the privilege leave may be accumulated upto not more than 240 days. Admittedly, in the present case, the respondent resigned to his post on 12.11.2007 is entitled to privilege leave may be accumulated upto not more than 240 days. In the present case, the petitioner is entitled to privilege leave to his credit 221 days. 12. Though the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellant bank by a circular No.103/18/2015/PHRDD, dated 05.08.2015 introduced the facility of Sabbatical Leave to the women employees and has also permitted for extension of leave encashment to the employees resigning after 20 years of qualifying service, the privilege leave has to be paid a sum equivalent to the emoluments in respect of privilege leave to the extent of half of such leave to his credit on the date of cessation of service, subject to maximum of 120 days. The said Circular is only prospective and not applicable to the respondent, who resigned from service on 12.11.2007. Therefore, he is entitled to the ‘privilege leave’ in terms of Clause 59(a)(4) of the Regulations of the appellant Bank. 13. The said Circular is only prospective and not applicable to the respondent, who resigned from service on 12.11.2007. Therefore, he is entitled to the ‘privilege leave’ in terms of Clause 59(a)(4) of the Regulations of the appellant Bank. 13. Considering the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and on careful consideration of the regulations stated supra, at any stretch of imagination, the bank cannot deprive the privilege leave to the respondent, who resigned to the post after 20 years of service which was accepted by the appellant Bank on 21.08.2008 vide Annexure-E without any demor, it is not justified on the part of the appellant bank to deprive privilege leave to the respondent which he is entitled to in terms of Regulations 59 and 64 of the appellant bank as stated supra. (VII) Conclusion: 14. In view of the above, the point raised in the present Intra Court Appeal has to be answered in the affirmative holding that the learned Single Judge is justified in allowing the writ petition, directing the appellant bank to pay privilege leave to the credit of the petitioner in accordance with law. The appellant has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of Appellate powers under the provisions of Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act in an intra court appeal filed. (VIII) Result: 15. In view of the above, we pass the following: ORDER (i) The Intra Court Appeal filed by the appellants is hereby dismissed as devoid of any merit. (ii) The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, directing the appellants-Bank to immediately release the accumulated privilege leave standing to the credit of the respondent up to the date of his resignation which was accepted by the appellants Bank within a period of six weeks, failing which, interest shall accrue on such amount at 10% p.a. till the date of payment is hereby confirmed, with costs.