p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.27936 of 2019 Pitambar Mallik …. Petitioner Mr. L. Mohanty, Advocate -Versus- The Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Steel and Mines Department, Lokaseva Bhawan, Bhubaneswar, Khorda and another …. Opposite Parties Mrs. S. Mohanty, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICER.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 06.02.2026 03. 1. Heard Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State. 2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned letter dated 28thNovember, 2019 as at Annexure-6 and further to direct the opposite parties to grant and release pay of the unutilized leave salary in his favour with interest at the rate 18% per annum within a stipulated period. 3. No counter affidavit is filed by the State, hence, an adjournment is requested. However, this Court is inclined to dispose of the matter considering the submission of Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner by the following order. p. 2 4. The sanction of unutilized leave salary has been denied to the petitioner vide Annexure-6. Referring to the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Krushna Chandra Mallick Vrs. State of Orissa and others in W.P.(C) No.22572 of 2019 dated 26th July, 2022, it is submitted by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner that the gratuity may be withheld in view of the bar under Rule 66(2) Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), however, the unutilized leave salary should have been released in favour of the petitioner but it has been declined vide Annexure-6. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner cited another order of this Court dated 21st September,2023 in W.P.(C) No.30120 of 2023 (Rashmi Ranjan Das Vrs. State of Odisha and others) to contend that the unutilized leave salary could not have been withheld by opposite party No.2, hence, the impugned decision as per Annexure-6 cannot be sustained in law. 5. Recorded the submission of learned counsel for the State. 6. In Krushna Chandra Mallick(supra), this Court directed grant of pension and unutilized leave salary as due and admissible to the petitioner therein within a stipulated period. Considering the provisions of the Rules, a similar direction was issued by this Court in Rashmi Ranjan Das (supra). The petitioner is not claiming gratuity in view of the pendency of the departmental proceeding and the bar under Rule 66 of the p. 3 Rules, 1992. But, since, the unutilized leave salary has not been disbursed in favour of the petitioner, considering the submissions of learned counsels for the respective parties and since on the premise that the departmental proceeding is not yet disposed of that it was declined by opposite party No.2 vide Annexure-6, regard being had to the case laws cited and discussed hereinbefore, this Court is of the view that the unutilized leave salary cannot be withheld and hence, it has to be disbursed immediately to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, it is ordered. 8. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned decision as per Annexure-6 is hereby set aside with a direction to opposite party No.2 to immediately disburse the unutilized leave salary in favour of the petitioner as soon as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Rojina Designation: Junior Stenographer