[2025:RJ-JP:13820] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24257/2018 Murlidhar Saini S/o Naradyan Prasad Saini, aged about 61 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Gram Panchayat Dayra, Post Dayra, via Khandela, District Sikar (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Rajasthan, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 2. Joint Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Sikar (Rajasthan) 3. District Treasury Officer, Sikar (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vidhut Kumar Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr.Ajay Verma for Mr.Avanish Kumar Sharma, Dy. GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 26/03/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuing directions to the respondents to make payment of amount of 69 days unearned Privileged Leaves to the petitioner with interest. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner stood retired on 30.04.2017, after attaining the age of superannuation. Counsel submits that at the time of retirement of the petitioner, the petitioner utilized 231 unearned privilege leaves out of total 300 Privilege Leaves. Counsel submits that at the time of retirement of the petitioner, the payment of the balanced [2025:RJ-JP:13820] (2 of 3) [CW-24257/2018] leaves, i.e., 69 days has not been granted to the petitioner and the same has been withheld by the respondents, without any justified reason in spite of passing of the considerable time, hence, under these circumstances, appropriate orders be passed directing the respondents to do the needful. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-state opposes the prayer and submits that the bill of payment of 69 Privilege Leaves was sent to the treasury officer on 30.11.2017, but the same has been returned vide order dated 09.07.2018 with the remark that “invalid payment according to rule”. Counsel submits that since the claim of the petitioner is invalid as according to Rule, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get the aforesaid relief and the petition is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the claim of the petitioner before the respondents was that prior to his retirement, 69 days Privilege Leaves were there in the account of petitioner and the same remained unutilized. When the petitioner stood retired on 30.04.2017, a prayer was made by him for making payment of amount of the aforesaid leaves, but the same was withheld by the respondents, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court, by filing of this petition with the above prayer. 6. This Court is not satisfied with the stand taken by the respondents that the claim of the petitioner was found to be [2025:RJ-JP:13820] (3 of 3) [CW-24257/2018] invalid for payment according to the Rule. The respondents have miserably failed to satisfy this Court that how the claim of the petitioner was invalid. There is no reference to any Rule and in absence thereof, the respondents cannot be allowed to withhold a rightful claim of the petitioner hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get the payment of the amount of 69 unutilized Privilege Leaves with interest in terms of Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to release the payment of amount of unutilized Privilege Leaves to the petitioner forthwith, with interest @ 9% p.a. 8. Needless to observe that the order passed by this Court would be complied with by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 9. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /112