KARNATAKA HC: Leave Encashment Is A Constitutional Property Right; It Cannot Be Denied Without Specific Statutory Authority

THE CONCLUSION:

11. The findings of both the High Courts would clearly cover the issue at hand on all its force, as those were also the cases were employees were dismissed from service on misconduct. The petitioner in the case at hand is also dismissed, on account of misconduct. Benefit of leave encashment to an employee is trite, a statutory right, but it has an imprimatur to the legal principle that right to receive terminal benefits is recognized as a right to property obtaining under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

"300-A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law.-No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law."

Article 300-A mandates that persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law. Therefore, it becomes unmistakably clear that any attempt of the employer to take away the right of any part of terminal benefit, which in the case at hand is, leave encashment, without any umbrage of a statutory provision, such action is sans countenanced.

12. Therefore, it is a right of an employee not only under the statute, even under the fountainhead of all statutes - The Constitution of India. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (DHARWAD BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 100339 of 2025 (S-RES)

Decided On: 19.02.2025

G. Linganagouda Vs. General Manager, Karnataka Gramina Bank

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Maheshan Nagaprasanna, J.

Citation:  2025:KHC-D:3366, MANU/KA/0674/2025.

Print Page

Understanding the Right to Property under the Indian Constitution: A Comprehensive Overview

 The Right to Property in India has undergone significant changes since the adoption of the Constitution in 1950. Initially, it was recognized as a fundamental right but was later reclassified as a legal right under Article 300-A due to various socio-economic reforms.

 Evolution of the Right to Property

Initial Recognition as a Fundamental Right

- The Right to Property was originally enshrined in Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 of the Constitution, allowing citizens to acquire, hold, and dispose of property.

Print Page

Supreme court: Right To Property Under Article 300A Available To A Person Who Isn't A Citizen Of India

 We say so because Article 300-A of the Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The word "law" is with reference to an Act of Parliament or of a State Legislature, a Rule or a statutory order having the force of law. Although, to hold property is not a fundamental right, yet it is a constitutional right. The expression person in Article 300-A covers not only a legal or juristic person but also a person who is not a citizen of India. The expression property is also of a wide scope and includes not only tangible or intangible property but also all rights, title and interest in a property. {Para 18}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 2878 of 2024.

Decided On: 22.02.2024

Lucknow Nagar Nigam and Ors. Vs. Kohli Brothers Colour Lab Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.

Author: B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0128/2024.

Print Page

Whether burden of proof is on panchayat/Municipality to establish that land was voluntarily surrendered to them?

In the present case, admittedly, there is neither any acquisition proceedings nor any transfer of rights by the appellants by way of sale, gift or otherwise. What is being alleged is that it was a voluntarily surrender of rights for no consideration. This is the stand taken by Panchayat / Municipality. If the Panchayat / Municipality is taking this stand, the burden would be on the Panchayat / Municipality to establish such voluntary surrender. A memorandum or an agreement or a written document ought to have been executed by the appellants stating their free will to surrender for no consideration in favour of the Panchayat / Municipality.  {Para 12}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 3189 OF 2022

KALYANI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. Vs THE SULTHAN BATHERY MUNICIPALITY & ORS.

Coram: DINESH MAHESHWARI; VIKRAM NATH, JJ. 

Author: VIKRAM NATH, J.

Dated: April 26, 2022 

Print Page