JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The instant appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 04.08.2021 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.193 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the writ petitioner seeking direction upon the respondents to disburse the leave encashment amount of 80 days more has been refused to be granted by dismissing the writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated, reads hereunder as :- It is the case of the petitioner that he joined the Bank's service in clerical cadre as Clerk cum Cashier on 03.03.1986 and promoted to Officer's cadre on 13.03.2008 and from the date of joining i.e. 03.03.1986 till 30.11.2008 he was posted at Daltonganj Branch of the Respondent Bank. Thereafter he was transferred to Bikramganj Branch where he remained posted from 01.12.2008 to 18.07.2010 from Bikramganj Branch he was transferred to Dalmia Nagar Branch and he remained posted there from 19.07.2010 till 18.01.2013 and from Dalmia Nagar Branch he was transferred to Khairadih Branch where he remained posted from 14.01.2013 till 08.10.2014. From Khairadih Branch he was transferred to Ranchi Branch where he remained posted from 09.10.2014 till 07.05.2018 and from Ranchi Branch he was transferred to SMEC Ranchi from where he superannuated from service on 29.02.2020. 3. At the time of superannuation, the petitioner submitted an application dated 18.02.2020 to his controller i.e. Assistant General Manager, SMEC, Ranchi. In the application dated 18.02.2020, the petitioner applied to encash 160 days privilege leave standing to his credit at the time of superannuation. The application of the petitioner was processed and a sum of Rs. 5,82,564.00 was received by the petitioner towards encashment of leave. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that employee of the Respondent Bank is entitled to encash his available leave balance up to a maximum of 240 days at the time of superannuation as per applicable rules, therefore, seeking an intervention of this Court for a direction to the Respondent Bank to pay another 100 days leave encashment. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that employee of the Respondent Bank is entitled to encash his available leave balance up to a maximum of 240 days at the time of superannuation as per applicable rules, therefore, seeking an intervention of this Court for a direction to the Respondent Bank to pay another 100 days leave encashment. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that he retired on 29.02.2020, as a Manager from SBI SMECC, Ranchi and when he was posted at Daltonganj, Branch from 03.03.1986 till July 2008, then his leave record has not been transferred H.R.M.S. and due to that the same has not been updated. The total leave encashment is around 100 days for which the payment has not been made till now. 6. The petitioner wrote several letters dated 22.05.2013, 25.05.2013, 03.07.2019 & 22.11.2019 including letter no. 2013 14/BR/279 when he was posted as Regional Manager at Sasaram to the staff supervising for anomaly in leave record. The petitioner finally gave a legal notice dated 28.10.2020 to the respondent No. 5 for which a reply dated 17.11.2020 has been received from the empanelled lawyer of the Bank. Thereafter, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.193 of 2021. 7. The respondents have appeared and filed counter affidavit vehemently opposing the claim of the petitioner in the writ petition stating that the relief claimed by the petitioner is of the nature of civil dispute and of the year 1986-2008 and the same is hopelessly barred by law of limitation and that there is no violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner, rather, as it appears from the petition, the relief and the dispute are of civil nature by and between the employer and employee. 8. The stand has also been taken that the claim made by the petitioner involves determination of disputed question of facts and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this score also. As per the service rules applicable to the petitioner, an officer of the Bank may encashment from time to time, he was left with a leave balance of 160 days only. Now, the claim of the Petitioner regarding leave encashment of 100 days and that too for the period 1986-2008 is nothing but an afterthought with a view to unlawful gain from the peculiar facts of the case. 9. Now, the claim of the Petitioner regarding leave encashment of 100 days and that too for the period 1986-2008 is nothing but an afterthought with a view to unlawful gain from the peculiar facts of the case. 9. It was the further stand of the respondent Bank that the HRMS leave record of the petitioner at the time of superannuation reflects that the accused privilege leave during the year at the time of superannuation was 23 days, accumulated privilege leave of proviso years was 137 days. The petitioner was therefore paid privilege leave encash of 160 days. 10. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, has dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner is not entitled to receive any further benefits of leave encashment against which the present appeal has been preferred. 11. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner, the appellant herein, who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation while discharging his duty as Scale-II Manager in the State Bank of India. 12. The appellant, after receiving the entire post retiral benefit at that time, has also made request on 18.02.2020 for disbursement of the leave encashment of 160 days (as per HRMS) Privilege Leave. 13. The respondent-Bank has processed the request and thereafter on calculation of the leave earned by the writ petitioner, the respondent-Bank has disbursed the amount of leave encashment for a period of 160 days. 14. The total entitlement of leave encashment as per the Service Rule applicable to the appellant was 240 days, out of which, as per the respondent-Bank, leave of 80 days has already been availed of by taking the privilege of leave, since, the appellant availed the leave encashment for a period of 90 days, i.e., on 10.02.2014 (30 days), 22.05.2017 (30 days) and 15.05.2019 (30 days). 15. The appellant, being aggrieved with the aforesaid calculation and disbursement of leave encashment for a period of 160 days, has approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.193 of 2021, seeking therein direction upon the respondents to disburse the amount of leave encashment of the total period of 240 days, out of which the encashment was only given for 160 days. 16. 16. But, the learned Single Judge, agreeing with the calculation which was furnished by way of a statement at Para-12 of the counter affidavit wherein the stand inter alia was taken by the respondent-Bank that the appellant has already taken privilege of leave for a period of 90 days and hence, the leave encashment was given for a period of 160 days. 17. The appellant, being aggrieved with the said order, approached this Court by filing this appeal. 18. Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that whatever calculation has been shown after availing the privilege of leave is beyond the period of 240 days and, as such, the same cannot be allowed to be deducted from 240 days. 19. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid argument, has submitted that the aforesaid aspect of the matter since has not been taken into consideration, therefore, the present appeal. 20. Per contra, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank, has submitted by referring the request/representation made by the appellant dated 18.02.2020 wherein the appellant was conscious with respect to his entitlement of encashment of leave only for a period of 160 days. 21. It has been contended that when the appellant himself has admitted his entitlement of the leave encashment of 160 days, where is now the question to retract back from the said request. 22. The ground has also been taken that it is incorrect on the part of the petitioner-appellant to take the ground that the leave which was availed was even beyond the period of 240 days, since, if that would have been the fact then the appellant would not have made request showing the claim for 160 days only, as per his request letter dated 18.02.2020. 23. Learned counsel based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, since has passed the order, hence, the same does not suffer from an error. 24. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the findings recorded by learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 25. Learned counsel based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, since has passed the order, hence, the same does not suffer from an error. 24. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the findings recorded by learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 25. This Court before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned order, needs to refer herein that as per the service rule applicable to the appellant, only 240 days leave encashment is to be disbursed to one or the other employees who have retired after attaining the age of superannuation from the respondent-Bank. 26. The appellant, at the time of retirement on attaining the age of superannuation, had made a request on 18.02.2020 showing admissibility of encashment on account of unavailed leave of 160 days. 27. The total period of leave for which leave encashment is to be disbursed as per the Service Rule is 240 days which is not in dispute in this case. 28. The only dispute which the appellant has raised by filing writ petition is that the period which has been availed, while the appellant was in service, was excluding the period of 240 days. Hence, the deduction which has been made due to availing the privilege of leave encashment of 90 days on 10.02.2014 (30 days), 22.05.2017 (30 days) and 15.05.2019 (30 days) will not come under the period of 240 days. Hence, the total number of unavailed leave which was 240 day, out of which disbursement was made for a period of 160 days only. 29. This Court is not impressed with such argument due to the sole reason that it is the appellant who has made request by filing representation on 18.02.2020 which is available at page 78 of the memo of appeal wherein the appellant has made a request before the Assistant General Manager, the competent authority, for claiming the encashment of 160 days’ leave. 30. It is, thus, evident that as per the appellant also, his claim was of 160 days only. However, subsequent thereto, when the leave was encashed for the period of 160 days, then the grievance has been raised that a deduction of 90 days which is being said to be availed by the appellant while he was in service will not come under 240 days. 31. However, subsequent thereto, when the leave was encashed for the period of 160 days, then the grievance has been raised that a deduction of 90 days which is being said to be availed by the appellant while he was in service will not come under 240 days. 31. But, there is no record appended to the writ petition or even in this appeal, rather, the respondent-Bank has taken the ground by appending the request letter dated 18.02.2020 before the learned writ court as also the same has been brought by the appellant himself in the memo of appeal at running page 78. 32. This Court, therefore, is of the view that what has been contended on behalf of the appellant is contrary to his admission which is available at the request letter dated 18.02.2020. 33. The respondent-Bank, while entering its appearance before the learned Single Judge, has filed a detailed counter affidavit wherein the fact was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that what is being claimed by him for encashment of leave for remaining period of 80 days, out of 240 days, but the appellant has already availed the leave encashment for a period of 90 days. 34. The learned Single Judge, accepting the same, has passed the order holding the writ petitioner not entitled of receiving any further benefits of leave encashment. 35. This Court, based upon the discussion made hereinabove, particularly the admission of the appellant as per the request made in letter dated 18.02.2020 and the averment made by the respondent-Bank in the counter affidavit, is of the view that order passed by the learned Single Judge needs no interference. 36. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. 37. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.