Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 27427 of 2021 Prasanna Kumar Sahu ..... Petitioner Ms. P. Panda, Advocate on behalf of Dr. B. Das, Advocate -versus- IREL (INDIA Ltd.) & Anr. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. N.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. A.K. Roy, Advocate CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 19.02.2026 Order No. 02 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Ms. P. Panda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Dr. B. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. N.K. Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties along with Mr. A.K. Roy, learned counsel. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased:- i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/writs by quashing the order dated 03.03.2021 under Annexure-1; ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs by directing the opp. party no.1 to release the amount of around Rs.60,000/- being the amount Page 2 of 3. of earned leave for 20 days in terms of Annexure-2 forthwith; iii) pass any other order or further orders as deemed just and proper. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall, as in duty bound, ever pray.” 4. It is contended that without proper appreciation, claim of the Petitioner to grant leave pay for the period from 06.06.2020 to 25.06.2020 was rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-1. 4.1. It is contended that since Petitioner had leave in his account instead of treating the period from 06.06.2020 to 25.06.2020 as leave, the said claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-1. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Mr. N.K. Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties on the other hand contended that during the period in question, Petitioner was allowed to discharge his duty form home and he has been paid with the salary for the period from 06.06.2020 to 25.06.2020. 5.1. It is also contended that Petitioner had no leave in his account after encashment for 300 days of AL (which is maximum ceiling for encashment of AL as per the leave rules applicable to the Petitioner) and also 247 days of Sick leave on attaining he age of superannuation. It is also contended that since Petitioner during the relevant period, was allowed to discharge his duty from home and he has been paid with the salary, which is not disputed, claim of the Petitioner to treat the period from 06.06.2020 to 25.06.2020 as leave has been rightly rejected. Page 3 of 3. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner made an application to treat the period from 06.06.2020 to 25.06.2020 as Annual Leave. Such claim of the Petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order dtd.03.03.2021 under Annexure-1. 6.1. This Court after going through the impugned order, finds that for the period from 06.06.2020 to 25.06.2020, Petitioner has been paid with the salary after he was allowed to discharge his duty from home during Covid-19. It is also found from the impugned order that Petitioner has been sanctioned leave encashment for 300 days of AL, which is maximum ceiling and he has also been allowed 247 days of Sick leave on attaining he age of superannuation. 6.2. In view of the nature of order passed under Annexure-1, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the same and accordingly is not inclined to interfere. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha