JUDGMENT : Anil K. Narendran, J. 1. The 1 st respondent in W.P. (C) No.24841 of 2022 has filed this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, challenging the judgment dated 04.03.2024 of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition, which was one filed by the 1 st respondent herein-writ petitioner, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the appellant Institute to disburse the unpaid balance gratuity amount calculated on the basis of the years of service of the petitioner in the appellant Institute and the pay due him as per the recommendations of the 7 th Central Pay Commission; a writ of mandamus commanding the appellant to disburse the money equivalent to 300 days of earned leave to the credit of the petitioner, while serving the appellant Institute; a writ of mandamus commanding the appellant to release the petitioner pay arrear benefits of the 7 th Central Pay Commission from 01.01.2016 to 09.06.2016; a writ of mandamus commanding the appellant to forward the petitioner’s service book to his present employer, namely, the Central University of Kerala and writ of mandamus commanding the appellant to pay the petitioner interest for delayed payment of benefits. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner joined the service of the appellant Institute, i.e. Jawaharlal Nehru Tropical Botanical Garden and Research Institute (formerly Tropical Botanical Garden and Research Institute), Palod, which is a constituent institution of the 2 nd respondent Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment, as Scientific Assistant, on 13.11.1995, who was promoted as Scientist E-II. Later, he left the service of the appellant Institute on 09.06.2016 and joined as an Associate Professor in the Department of Genomic Science at the Central University of Kerala. As on 09.06.2016, the date of leaving the service of the appellant Institute, the petitioner had completed more than 20 years of continuous service in the appellant Institute. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P. (C) No.10618 of 2018, when the appellant Institute refused to consider his claim of lien. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment dated 19.11.2020, giving liberty to approach the appellant Institute by submitting a representation, within the time limit stipulated in that judgment. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P. (C) No.10618 of 2018, when the appellant Institute refused to consider his claim of lien. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment dated 19.11.2020, giving liberty to approach the appellant Institute by submitting a representation, within the time limit stipulated in that judgment. Pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.P3 judgment, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 27.11.2020 before the appellant Institute to sanction closure of Contributory Employees Provident Fund, encashment of earned leave equivalent to 300 days in his credit, gratuity amount in par with the years of service in the appellant Institute, closure amount of group insurance, pay arrears as per the recommendation of 7 th Central Pay Commission, from 01.01.2016 to 09.06.2016; and transfer of his service book to the Central University of Kerala. 3. On receipt of Ext.P4 representation, the petitioner was paid Rs.48,989/- towards the closure of the group insurance claim and Rs.10 lakhs towards the gratuity amount. The amount towards the closure of the Contributory Employees Provident Fund was transferred through the office of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to better gratuity and hence the balance amount has to be paid. He is also entitled to encashment of 300 days leave on his credit. 4. In the writ petition, the 2 nd respondent Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment filed a counter affidavit dated 03.10.2023, wherein it was stated that the petitioner, while working as Scientist-E, was relieved from service to take up employment as Associate Professor in the Department of Genomic Sciences in the Central University of Kerala. Since the said University is not a State-owned institution, there is no provision for transferring the earned leave surrender value. The 2 nd respondent placed reliance on Rule 12.2 of the Service Rules of the Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment, which applies to its constituent institutions, including the appellant Institute. As per the said Rule, employees in the administrative category and others, except scientific category, will be permitted to surrender leave with salary at the rate to which the Government employees are allowed to surrender earned leave. Since the petitioner is not under the administrative category but was under the scientific category, he is not entitled to surrender the earned leave. 5. Since the petitioner is not under the administrative category but was under the scientific category, he is not entitled to surrender the earned leave. 5. On behalf of the appellant Institute a statement dated 19.09.2022 has been filed in the writ petition, wherein it was stated that the earned leave standing in the credit of the petitioner cannot be transferred to the Central University of Kerala, since no rule or guidelines stipulates the transfer of earned leave from one autonomous body under the State Government to an autonomous body under the Central Government. As far as gratuity is concerned, the maximum limit of Rs.10 lakh has already been paid and group insurance has also been released. Payment of gratuity without ceiling was granted only to those who have obtained a specific direction of this Court, as in the case of persons covered by the judgment dated 01.11.2018 in W.P.(C)No.24687 of 2017 and connected matters. 6. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit dated 26.11.2023 to the counter affidavit filed by the 2 nd respondent, producing therewith Exts.P11 to P13 documents. Rule 8 Part II Section II of Ext.P11 Service Rules deals with leave in general. 7. After considering the rival contentions, the learned Single Judge noticed that even if the petitioner-1 st respondent herein resigns from the appellant Institute, he is entitled to claim leave salary to the maximum of 300 days as per Note (i) of Rule 8.9 of the Service Rules. As per Ext.P12 order dated 03.05.2017 and Ext.P13 order dated 10.06.2019, the appellant Institute sanctioned earned leave surrender in respect of Dr. Mukundakumar, Principal Scientist and Dr.K.Sathishkumar, Sr. Principal Scientist, invoking Rule 8.9 of Ext.P11 Service Rules. Therefore, the learned Single Judge found that the petitioner, being a similarly situated person in the scientific category, is also entitled to terminal leave surrender by invoking Rule 8.9 of the Service Rules. The learned Single Judge noticed that there is no dispute that the recommendations of the 7 th Central Pay Commission have been adopted by the appellant Institute and also by the 2 nd respondent Kerala State Council for Technology and Environment, from 01.01.2016. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to arrears of pay from 01.01.2016 to 09.06.2016, the date on which he resigned from the appellant Institute and joined the Central University of Kerala. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to arrears of pay from 01.01.2016 to 09.06.2016, the date on which he resigned from the appellant Institute and joined the Central University of Kerala. Therefore, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition with the directions contained in paragraph 5 of that judgment, which read thus: “1. Invoking Rule 8.9 of the Rules the petitioner is entitled to claim terminal leave surrender to the tune of 300 days. 2. As far as gratuity is concerned, Rule 14 of the Rules governs gratuity, which is a better gratuity than the Gratuity Act. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a better gratuity under Rule 14 of the Rules. The petitioner shall be paid the arrears of pay under the 7 th Central Pay Commission from 01.01.2016 to 09.06.2016. 3. Computation of the amounts due to the petitioner as stated above shall be done and orders in this regard shall be passed by the 1 st respondent, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The claim for interest is left open.” 8. This writ appeal was filed along with C.M. Appl. No.1 of 2024 for condoning the filing delay of 116 days, which was condoned by the order dated 10.10.2024. 9. On 20.05.2025, when this writ appeal came up for consideration, this Court passed a detailed order on the delay in uploading the handwritten order dated 04.11.2024 in the CMS and transmitting back the file to the Chambers. Registry to place the explanations offered by the officers in the Writ Appeal Section and Court Officers Section before Registrar General, who shall consider the question as to whether further action is necessary in the matter. 10. Heard arguments of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-1 st respondent, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent-petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2 nd respondent. 11. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Institute contended that the 1 st respondent was relieved from the service of the appellant Institute on getting an appointment at the Central University of Kerala. As such, he is not eligible for the surrender of leave with salary, to a maximum of 300 days, and for its encashment, as per the provisions contained in Rule 8.9 of Ext.P11 Service Rules, read with Note (i) to Rule 8.9. As such, he is not eligible for the surrender of leave with salary, to a maximum of 300 days, and for its encashment, as per the provisions contained in Rule 8.9 of Ext.P11 Service Rules, read with Note (i) to Rule 8.9. The surrender of leave with salary and its encashment is the entitlement of an employee of the appellant Institute at the time of retirement or death while in service or termination of service or resignation. By Ext.P12 order dated 03.05.2017 and Ext.P13 order dated 10.06.2019, encashment of earned leave for 300 days accumulated at the credit of two scientists, who retired from the service of the appellant Institute, was granted under Rule 8.9 Part II Section II of Ext.P11 Service Rules. Since the 1 st respondent was relieved from the service of the appellant Institute, as evidenced by Ext.P1 experience certificate, who enjoyed retention of lien for 2 years, is not a person similarly situated to those in Ext.P12 order dated 03.05.2017 and Ext.P13 order dated 10.06.2019, therefore, the 1 st respondent cannot rely on Exts.P12 and P13 orders. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent-petitioner contended that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is one rendered after appreciating in the proper perspective the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides. Therefore, the said judgment warrants no interference in this appeal. The 1 st respondent, who left the service of the appellant institute on 09.06.2016, after serving the institute for more than 20 years, as evident from Ext.P1 experience certificate dated 14.06.2016, to join as an Associate Professor in the Department of Genomic Science at the Central University of Kerala, was issued with Ext.P2 last pay certificate dated 09.06.2016. After Ext.P3 judgment of this Court dated 19.11.2020 in W.P. (C) No.10618 of 2018, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 27.11.2020, tendering technical resignation from the post of Scientist E-II at the appellant Institute, with effect from 09.06.2018, to continue in the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Genomic Science at the Central University of Kerala. After Ext.P3 judgment of this Court dated 19.11.2020 in W.P. (C) No.10618 of 2018, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 27.11.2020, tendering technical resignation from the post of Scientist E-II at the appellant Institute, with effect from 09.06.2018, to continue in the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Genomic Science at the Central University of Kerala. In the said representation, the petitioner has sought for disbursal of terminal benefits, like the closure of contributory employees provident fund, the encashment of earned leave, the gratuity amount, the closure of group insurance and pay arrears based on recommendations of the 7 th Central Pay Commission, for the period from 01.01.2016 to 09.06.2016. The entitlement of the 1 st respondent to encashment of earned leave, equivalent to 300 days earned leave in his credit, is governed by the provisions under Rule 8.9 of Ext.P11 Service Rules, read with Note (i) to Rule 8.9 and Rule 5. On the other hand, Rule 12.1 of the said Rules deals with the leave salary, and Rule 12.2 relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Institute and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2 nd respondent, deals with the surrender of leave with salary. 13. The learned Standing Counsel for the 2 nd respondent contended that as per Rule 12.2 of Ext.P11 Service Rules, the 1 st respondent-writ petitioner, who was working as Scientist E-II at the appellant Institute, in the scientific category, is not entitled to surrender the leave with salary, and as such the learned Single Judge went wrong in allowing the writ petition by the judgment dated 04.03.2024. Further, the 1 st respondent, who was relieved from the service of the appellant Institute on getting an appointment at the Central University of Kerala, is not eligible for the surrender of leave with salary, to a maximum of 300 days, and for its encashment, as per the provisions contained in Rule 8.9 of Ext.P11 Service Rules, read with Note (i) to Rule 8.9. 14. 14. As already noticed, one of the contentions raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the 2 nd respondent Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment is that as per Rule 12.2 of Part II Section II of Ext.P11 Service Rules, the 1 st respondent, who was working as Scientist E-II at the appellant Institute, in the scientific category, is not entitled to surrender the leave with salary, and as such the learned Single Judge went wrong granting such a relief. 15. Rule 12 of Ext.P11 Service Rules deals with miscellaneous provisions. Rule 12.1 deals with leave salary. As per Rule 12.1, an employee on leave with salary or on maternity leave shall be entitled to leave salary equal to the pay and allowances which the employee would have drawn had the employee remained on duty during the period of leave. Rule 12.2 deals with surrender of leave. As per Rule 12.2, employees in the administrative category and others except scientific category will be permitted to surrender the leave with salary at the rate the government employees are allowed to surrender earned leave. 16. Admittedly, as evidenced by Ext.P12 order dated 03.05.2017 and Ext.P13 order dated 10.06.2019, encashment of earned leave for 300 days accumulated at the credit of two scientists, who retired from the service of the appellant Institute, was granted under Rule 8.9 Part II Section II of Ext.P11 Service Rules. The only contention raised by the appellant Institute in this writ appeal is that, since the 1 st respondent was relieved from the service of the appellant Institute, as evidenced by Ext.P1 experience certificate, who enjoyed retention of lien for 2 years, he is not a person similarly situated to those in Ext.P12 order dated 03.05.2017 and Ext.P13 order dated 10.06.2019. Therefore, the 1 st respondent cannot rely on Exts.P12 and P13 orders. Therefore, the 1 st respondent cannot rely on Exts.P12 and P13 orders. When the appellant Institute has no case in this writ appeal that Rule 12.2 of Ext.P11 Service Rules, disentitles an employee working in the scientific category, to surrender the leave with salary, to a maximum of 300 days, and for its encashment, as per the provisions contained in Rule 8.9 of Ext.P11 Service Rules, read with Note (i) to Rule 8.9, at the time of his retirement or death while in service or termination of service or resignation, we find that this Court need not consider in these proceedings the rival contentions of the 1 st respondent-petitioner and the 2 nd respondent on the applicability of Rule 12.2 of Ext.P11 Service Rules on the claim made by the 1 st respondent for the surrender of leave with salary and its encashment under Rule 8.9 of Ext.P11 Service Rules, read with Note (i) to Rule 8.9. 17. The appellant Institute, is a constituent institution of the 2 nd respondent Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment. Admittedly, Ext.P11 Service Rules governs the employees of the appellant Institute. Rule 8 of the said Rules deals with leave. As per Rule 8.9. leave with salary earned by an employee as on the date of retirement shall lapse on his retirement provided leave salary for the leave with salary earned as on date, subject to a maximum of 300 days paid for. As per Note (i) of Rule 8.9, the said benefit shall also accrue to an employee who dies while in service or whose service is terminated under Rule 3 or who resigns under Rule 5. As per Note (ii) of Rule 8.9, the sanctioning authority will suo motu sanction the encashment. As per Note (iii) of Rule 8.9, leave salary for the leave with salary surrendered will be calculated at 1/30 th of the monthly salary per day, irrespective of the month in which it is encased. As per Note (iv) of Rule 8.9, house rent allowance and city compensatory allowance will be admissible in respect of terminal encashment. 18. Rule 3 of Ext.P11 Service Rules, which deals with termination of service, which reads thus; “3. Termination of Service 3.1. As per Note (iv) of Rule 8.9, house rent allowance and city compensatory allowance will be admissible in respect of terminal encashment. 18. Rule 3 of Ext.P11 Service Rules, which deals with termination of service, which reads thus; “3. Termination of Service 3.1. The service of an employee may be terminated by the appointing authority at any time without assigning reasons on notice of three months or on payment of one month’s salary in lieu thereof. Note: No notice shall be necessary for termination of service of an employee for want of vacancies. 3.2. The termination of service of employees for want of vacancies shall be in the order of juniority. 3.3. The seniority of an employee in a post shall be determined by the order of merit in which he was selected for appointment to that post. Those selected earlier shall be ranked senior to those selected later. 3.4. In the case of appointment by methods other than selection, the seniority shall be determined by the date on which the employee joins duty of the post. 3.5. The appointing authority may, in addition to the benefits otherwise admissible to an employee, grant such relief as it deems fit, considering the employee’s qualification, age and experience, if termination of service was due to abolition of the post in which he was continuing. (underline supplied) 19. Rule 4 of Ext.P11 Service Rules deals with retirement, which reads thus; “4. Retirement 4.1. An employee in administrative/technical category shall retire from service with effect from the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains 58 years of age. For scientific staff, the retirement age is 60 years. 4.2. An employee with the prior sanction of the appointing authority, may voluntarily retire from service on completing twenty years of qualifying service or at the age of fifty, whichever is earlier. Note: An employee seeking voluntary retirement shall give one month notice to the appointing authority informing the employee’s intention to do so. 4.3. An employee shall be retired compulsorily by the appointing authority. (i) as a penalty or (ii) on being declared medically unfit for service by a medical board constituted for the purpose, by the appointing authority. (underline supplied) 20. Rule 5 of Ext.P11 Service Rules deals with Resignation, which reads thus; “5. 4.3. An employee shall be retired compulsorily by the appointing authority. (i) as a penalty or (ii) on being declared medically unfit for service by a medical board constituted for the purpose, by the appointing authority. (underline supplied) 20. Rule 5 of Ext.P11 Service Rules deals with Resignation, which reads thus; “5. Resignation Subject to acceptance by the appointing authority an employee may resign from service by notice of one month or on payment of one month’s salary in lieu thereof. Note: At the request of an employee, where resignation is accepted from a date before the completion of the notice period, the salary for the period so fallen short in the notice period shall be recovered from the employee. 5.1. An employee who resigned or who is dismissed from service shall forfeit his past service. An employee dismissed from service shall not be eligible for any appointment in the Council.” (underline supplied) 21. The provisions under Ext.P11 Service Rules referred to hereinbefore would make it explicitly clear that as per Rule 8.9, an employee of the appellant Institute, as on the date of retirement, is entitled to leave salary for the leave with salary earned as on that date, subject to a maximum of 300 days, and for encashment of the same. As per Note (i) of Rule 8.9, the said benefit shall also accrue to an employee of the appellant Institute who dies while in service or whose service is terminated under Rule 3 or who resigns under Rule 5. Therefore, going by the provisions under Ext.P11 Service Rules, an employee of the appellant Institute is entitled to leave salary for the leave with salary earned, subject to the limit proscribed in Rule 8.9, and for encashment of the same, only in the case of retirement from service or death while in service or termination from service under Rule 3 or resignation under Rule 5. In other words, an incident of retirement from service or death while in service or termination from service under Rule 3 or resignation under Rule 5, is an essential condition for claiming leave salary for the leave with salary earned by an employee of the appellant Institute, subject to the limit proscribed in Rule 8.9, and for encashment of the same. 22. 22. We also notice the provisions contained in Rule 3.5 of Ext.P11 Service Rules, which provides that the appointing authority may, in addition to the benefits otherwise admissible to an employee, grant such relief as it deems fit, considering the employee’s qualification, age and experience if termination of service was due to abolition of the post in which he was continuing. 23. According to the appellant Institute, the 1 st respondent-petitioner, who left the service of the institute on 09.06.2016, after serving the Institute for more than 20 years, to join as an Associate Professor in the Department of Genomic Science at the Central University of Kerala, established under the Central Universities Act, 2009. Since the 1 st respondent was relieved from the service of the appellant Institute, as evidenced by Ext.P1 experience certificate dated 14.06.2016, who enjoyed retention of lien for 2 years, is not entitled to claim leave salary for the leave with salary earned by him, subject to the limit proscribed in Rule 8.9, and for encashment of the same. Ext.P12 order dated 03.05.2017 and Ext.P13 order dated 10.06.2019 deal with the employees of the appellant Institute, in the scientific category, who were granted the said benefit under Rule 8.9 Part II Section II of Ext.P11 Service Rules, on their retirement from service, on attaining the age of superannuation provided in Rule 4.1 of the said Rules. Therefore, the learned Single Judge went wrong in concluding that the 1 st respondent-petitioner is entitled to invoke the provisions under Rule 8.9 of Ext.P11 Service Rules to claim terminal leave surrender to the tune of 300 days. 24. On the other hand, according to the 1 st respondent-petitioner, his case falls under the category ‘resignation’ from the service of the appellant Institute for taking up employment an Associate Professor in the Department of Genomic Science at the Central University of Kerala. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel relied on Ext.P4 representation dated 27.11.2020 made before the Director of the appellant Institute. 25. As already noticed hereinbefore, the provisions contained in Rule 5 of Ext.P11 Service Rules, which deals with resignation. As per Rule 5, subject to acceptance by the appointing authority an employee may resign from service by notice of one month or on payment of one month’s salary in lieu thereof. 25. As already noticed hereinbefore, the provisions contained in Rule 5 of Ext.P11 Service Rules, which deals with resignation. As per Rule 5, subject to acceptance by the appointing authority an employee may resign from service by notice of one month or on payment of one month’s salary in lieu thereof. As per Note to Rule 5, at the request of an employee, where resignation is accepted from a date before the completion of the notice period, the salary for the period so fallen short in the notice period shall be recovered from the employee. 26. In the instant case, admittedly, the 1 st respondent-petitioner left the service of the appellant Institute on 09.06.2016, to take up an appointment as an Associate Professor in the Department of Genomic Science at the Central University of Kerala. The said fact is evident from Ext.P1 experience certificate dated 14.06.2016 issued by the Director of the appellant Institute. As discernible from Ext.P3 judgment of this Court dated 19.11.2020 in W.P. (C) No.10618 of 2018, the 1 st respondent made a request dated 02.06.2016 [marked Ext.P4 in that writ petition] before the appellant Institute to relieve him from the Institute, to take up employment as Associate Professor in the Central University of Kerala. He has also requested to retain the lien for 2 years. The specific stand taken by the appellant Institute, in the statement dated 19.09.2022 filed in W.P. (C) No.24841 of 2022, was that vide order No.14/Estt.3/2016 dated 09.06.2016 [marked Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No.10618 of 2018], the appellant Institute accorded sanction to relieve the 1 st respondent from service, subject to the condition that his request for retention of the lien for 2 years could be approved only in consultation with the 2 nd respondent Council, i.e., the Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment. The 1 st respondent has not chosen to produce a copy of the said order dated 09.06.2016, as an exhibit in W.P. (C) No.24841 of 2022. 27. After the disposal of W.P. (C) No.10618 of 2018 by Ext.P3 judgment dated 19.11.2020, the 1 st respondent-petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 27.11.2020, stating that he is tendering technical resignation from the post of Scientist E-II at the appellant Institute, with effect from 09.06.2018, to continue in the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Genomic Science at the Central University of Kerala. As already noticed hereinbefore, vide order No.14/Estt.3/2016 dated 09.06.2016 issued by the appellant Institute, sanction was accorded to relieve the 1 st respondent from service to take up employment as an Associate Professor in the Central University of Kerala. The only issue remaining for consideration was the request made by the 1 st respondent for retention of the lien for 2 years. As stated in the statement filed by the appellant Institute in W.P.(C)No.24841 of 2022, in the order dated 09.06.2016, the appellant has made it clear that the request for retention of the lien for 2 years could be approved only in consultation with the 2 nd respondent Council. Therefore, we find absolutely no merits in the contention of the 1 st respondent-petitioner that to continue in the post of Associate Professor at the Central University of Kerala he had tendered resignation (technical resignation), by submitting Ext.P4 representation dated 27.11.2020 before the appellant Institute. 28. When an incident of retirement from service or death while in service or termination from service under Rule 3 or resignation under Rule 5, is an essential condition for claiming leave salary for the leave with salary earned by an employee of the appellant Institute, subject to the limit proscribed in Rule 8.9 of Ext.P11 Service Rules, and for encashment of the same, the 1 st respondent-petitioner who was relieved from the service of the appellant Institute on 09.06.2016, to take up employment as an Associate Professor in the Central University of Kerala, is not entitled to leave salary for the leave with salary earned by him as an employee of the appellant Institute and for encashment of the same. In such circumstances, we find no valid grounds to sustain the finding of the learned Single Judge that the 1 st respondent-petitioner is entitled to claim terminal surrender of leave to the tune of 300 days, invoking the provisions under Rule 8.9 of Ext.P11 Service Rules. 29. In the result, this writ appeal is allowed, by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 04.03.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.24841 of 2022 to the extent of holding that 1 st respondent-petitioner is entitled to claim terminal surrender of leave to the tune of 300 days, invoking the provisions under Rule 8.9 of Ext.P11 Service Rules.