IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 230 Vikram Singh State of Haryana and CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of (Annexure P petitioner for release of leave encashment has been rejected. The petitioner further seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of directing the respondents to release leave encashment in respect of the remaining annum on account of the alleged delayed payment. A further direction has also been sought for payment of interest @ leave encashment pertaining to CWP-20018-2024 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.20018 of 2024 Date of decision : Vikram Singh Versus State of Haryana and others CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Shashikant Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Pratap Singh, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate with Ms. Ayushi, Advocate for respondent No.3 NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.3, w petitioner for release of leave encashment has been rejected. The petitioner further seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of directing the respondents to release leave encashment in respect of the remaining 159 days of earned leave, along with interest @ on account of the alleged delayed payment. A further direction has also been sought for payment of interest @ leave encashment pertaining to 141 days of earned leave 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 20018 of 2024 (O & M) Date of decision :-20.07.2026 …..Petitioner …..Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Shashikant Gupta, Advocate Mr. Ravi Pratap Singh, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate with Ms. Ayushi, Advocate for respondent No.3-HRECL. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the for quashing the order dated 29.03.2024 8) passed by respondent No.3, whereby the claim of the petitioner for release of leave encashment has been rejected. The petitioner further seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release leave encashment in respect of the , along with interest @ 18% per on account of the alleged delayed payment. A further direction has also been sought for payment of interest @ 18% per annum on the 141 days of earned leave, which, VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.23 10.54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document though releas alleged delay of about petitioner submits that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner with regard to the release of leave encashment has substantially been redressed, inasmuch as the remaining amount of leave encashment has been released in favour of the petitioner vide order dated however, contended that the petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on entire amount of leave encashment had become due and payable on the said date. Despite there being no legal impediment for withholding the same, the balance amount was released only on 06.05.2025 submitted that the petitioner has been deprived of the use of his legitimate retiral dues for a considerable period and is, therefore, entitled to reasonable interest on the delayed payment. respondent No.3, on instructions, fairly does not dispute the factum of delay in the release of the retiral dues and candidly submits that the petitioner would be entitled to payment of reasonable interest for the delayed release of leave encashment. considering the undisputed factual position that the retiral benefit of leave encashment, which had admittedly become due on the date of CWP-20018-2024 (O & M) though released on 11.04.2023, is stated to have been paid after an alleged delay of about nine months. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner with regard to the release of leave encashment has substantially been redressed, inasmuch as the remaining amount of leave encashment has been released in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 06.05.2025 however, contended that the petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2022 entire amount of leave encashment had become due and payable on the said date. Despite there being no legal impediment for withholding the same, the balance amount was released only on 06.05.2025, after an inordinate delay of nearly submitted that the petitioner has been deprived of the use of his legitimate retiral dues for a considerable period and is, therefore, entitled to reasonable interest on the delayed payment. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing respondent No.3, on instructions, fairly does not dispute the factum of delay in the release of the retiral dues and candidly submits that the petitioner would be entitled to payment of reasonable interest for the delayed release of leave encashment. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the undisputed factual position that the retiral benefit of leave encashment, which had admittedly become due on the date of 2 , is stated to have been paid after an At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner with regard to the release of leave encashment has substantially been redressed, inasmuch as the remaining amount of leave encashment has been released in favour of 06.05.2025 (Annexure R-1). It is, however, contended that the petitioner had retired from service on 31.07.2022 and, therefore, the entire amount of leave encashment had become due and payable on the said date. Despite there being no legal impediment for withholding the same, the balance amount was released only on , after an inordinate delay of nearly three years. It is, thus, submitted that the petitioner has been deprived of the use of his legitimate retiral dues for a considerable period and is, therefore, entitled to reasonable interest on the delayed payment. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, on instructions, fairly does not dispute the factum of delay in the release of the retiral dues and candidly submits that the petitioner would be entitled to payment of reasonable interest for the Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the undisputed factual position that the retiral benefit of leave encashment, which had admittedly become due on the date of VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.23 10.54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document retirement of the petitioner considerable d that the petitioner deserves to be compensated by way of payment of interest for the period during which the amount remained unjustifiably withheld. It is well settled that retiral benefits are not a matter of bounty but constitute valuable rights of an employee and are required to be released within a reasonable time. In the absence of any justifiable reason for withholding the payment, the employee cannot be deprived of compensation for the delayed release of suc Respondent No.3 is directed to calculate and release to the petitioner interest @ 6% per annum encashment, for the period commencing from the date the amount became due till the date of its actual release. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed and the admissible amount shall be released to the petitioner within a period of certified copy of this order. stand disposed of. July 20, 202 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No CWP-20018-2024 (O & M) retirement of the petitioner on 31.7.2022 considerable delay on 06.5.2025, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves to be compensated by way of payment of interest for the period during which the amount remained unjustifiably withheld. It is well settled that retiral benefits are not a matter of nty but constitute valuable rights of an employee and are required to be released within a reasonable time. In the absence of any justifiable reason for withholding the payment, the employee cannot be deprived of compensation for the delayed release of suc Accordingly, the present writ petition is Respondent No.3 is directed to calculate and release to the petitioner interest @ 6% per annum on the delayed payment of leave encashment, for the period commencing from the date the amount due till the date of its actual release. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed and the admissible amount shall be released to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks certified copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 3 2, was released only after a , this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves to be compensated by way of payment of interest for the period during which the amount remained unjustifiably withheld. It is well settled that retiral benefits are not a matter of nty but constitute valuable rights of an employee and are required to be released within a reasonable time. In the absence of any justifiable reason for withholding the payment, the employee cannot be deprived of compensation for the delayed release of such dues. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.3 is directed to calculate and release to the petitioner on the delayed payment of leave encashment, for the period commencing from the date the amount due till the date of its actual release. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed and the admissible amount shall be released to the from the date of receipt of a ous application(s), if any, shall also ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.23 10.54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document