Order : Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent's authority to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of leave encashment. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent's authority to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of leave encashment of Rs. 04,26,496/- with 12% annual interest from 31.07.2020 to till date. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners within the period of 4 weeks. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was employed as an Assistant Grade II in the Department of Urban Administration and Development at Nagar Palika Parisad Sakti, District Sakti (Chhattisgarh). She retired from her position on 31.07.2020, as per the retirement order dated 30.05.2020. Throughout her service, the petitioner discharged her duties with utmost sincerity and to the satisfaction of her superiors. There have been no complaints or inquiries against her during her tenure, and her entire service record is clear and unblemished. After her retirement, the petitioner has not received the payment for leave encashment, which is a statutory entitlement for Government employees upon retirement. In this regard, the petitioner has made several requests and representations to the respondent authorities for the release of her due leave encashment. However, despite her repeated efforts, no action has been taken to process her claim for leave encashment. To further ascertain the status of her entitlement, the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. In response, the respondents confirmed that the petitioner is entitled to a leave encashment amount of Rs. 4,26,496/-. Despite the clear entitlement and the information provided under the RTI Act, the respondents have failed to take any action to pay the petitioner her due leave encashment. In response, the respondents confirmed that the petitioner is entitled to a leave encashment amount of Rs. 4,26,496/-. Despite the clear entitlement and the information provided under the RTI Act, the respondents have failed to take any action to pay the petitioner her due leave encashment. This inaction on the part of the respondents is not only illegal and erroneous but also contrary to the established laws governing the payment of such entitlements. The petitioner has suffered significant financial hardship due to the non-payment, and continues to face irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated at a later stage. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate legal remedy to ensure the payment of her rightful leave encashment, along with any consequential relief that may be deemed fit by this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the actions of the respondents in failing to pay the petitioner her entitled leave encashment after her retirement are both illegal and erroneous. It is submitted that, despite multiple representations and requests made by the petitioner, no action has been taken by the respondents to settle her claim for leave encashment. This inaction is contrary to the established laws and procedures that govern the payment of such entitlements to Government employees upon their retirement. The petitioner, having retired on 31.07.2020, is rightfully entitled to the payment of her leave encashment, which amounts to Rs. 4,26,496/- as confirmed by the respondents themselves through the Right to Information (RTI) request made by the petitioner. The petitioner has made several earnest attempts to follow up on her entitlement, having approached the respondents through numerous representations, yet her claims remain unresolved. Despite this, the respondents have failed to take any action and have not released the due payment. This failure is not only a violation of the legal rights of petitioner but is also in direct contravention of the fundamental principle that an employee is entitled to encashment of unused leave at the time of retirement. It is further submitted that the continued inaction of the respondents, despite the clear acknowledgment of the entitlement of petitioner, has caused her significant financial distress. The non-payment of the leave encashment has placed the petitioner in a position where she is suffering irreparable loss, which cannot be remedied at a later stage. It is further submitted that the continued inaction of the respondents, despite the clear acknowledgment of the entitlement of petitioner, has caused her significant financial distress. The non-payment of the leave encashment has placed the petitioner in a position where she is suffering irreparable loss, which cannot be remedied at a later stage. The petitioner, having faithfully served her duties during her tenure, should not be subjected to such undue hardship and financial deprivation after her retirement. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents' failure to act upon the petitioner's legitimate request for leave encashment is in clear violation of the law, which mandates that such dues be settled without unnecessary delay. The petitioner seeks immediate intervention of this Court to direct the respondents to release the due payment of Rs. 4,26,496/-. 4. Learned State counsel as also the learned counsel for respondent No. 4 opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and would jointly submit that the petitioner, who retired as Assistant Grade-II from the office of Nagar Palika Parishad, Sakti, District Sakti, on 31.07.2020, has already been paid all her retiral dues in 2020, except for the leave encashment amounting to Rs. 4,26,496/-. It is submitted that the reason for withholding the leave encashment is due to the pendency of a departmental inquiry against the petitioner. The inquiry pertains to serious allegations regarding the illegal payment made to a contractor under the borewell work carried out by the respondent no. 4 during the year 2012-2013. These allegations, which involve financial irregularities, were made against the petitioner during her tenure in service. The departmental inquiry was initiated in accordance with the applicable legal provisions, with the Joint Director of Urban Administration & Development, Bilaspur, appointed as the Inquiry Officer, and the Chief Municipal Officer of Nagar Palika Parishad, Sakti, as the Presenting Officer. The Inquiry Officer has conducted a thorough inquiry and submitted a report to the State Government, wherein the allegations against the petitioner were found to be substantiated. Furthermore, it is submitted that following the submission of the inquiry report, the proceedings of the departmental inquiry are still ongoing, and the final decision in the matter is pending before the State Government. Furthermore, it is submitted that following the submission of the inquiry report, the proceedings of the departmental inquiry are still ongoing, and the final decision in the matter is pending before the State Government. As per the established procedure, until a final decision is made, the petitioner is not entitled to receive the leave encashment, as the matter involves financial irregularities for which the petitioner is allegedly responsible. The inquiry report has confirmed that the petitioner, along with others, is responsible for causing a financial loss of Rs. 22.26 lakh to the State Government. As per the findings of the inquiry, the petitioner is liable for recovery of her share, which amounts to Rs. 7,42,000/-. In light of these facts, the withholding of the leave encashment is in accordance with the law and procedural requirements. The claim of petitioner for release of the leave encashment is premature and cannot be entertained until the departmental inquiry is concluded and the final decision is taken by the State Government. Thus, the learned counsel submits that the actions of the respondents are justified, and the claim of petitioner for leave encashment should not be granted at this stage. Therefore, it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed as the withholding of leave encashment is in line with the ongoing departmental proceedings and the findings of the inquiry report. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 6. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the petitioner, who retired on 31.07.2020 from the post of Assistant Grade II in the Department of Urban Administration and Development at Nagar Palika Parishad, Sakti, has not been paid her entitled leave encashment despite repeated requests and representations made to the respondents. It is confirmed by the respondents themselves, through the Right to Information (RTI) response, that the petitioner is due a leave encashment amount of Rs. 4,26,496/-. The primary contention of the respondents for withholding the payment is the pendency of a departmental inquiry against the petitioner, related to allegations of financial irregularities, specifically concerning illegal payments to a contractor in connection with borewell work carried out in 2012-2013. It is further submitted that the inquiry report has found the allegations against the petitioner to be substantiated, and recovery proceedings are underway. It is further submitted that the inquiry report has found the allegations against the petitioner to be substantiated, and recovery proceedings are underway. However, this Court notes that the petitioner has been retired for more than three years and is entitled to receive her statutory dues, including leave encashment, which ought to be settled promptly, in accordance with the established rules and regulations governing the payment of retiral benefits. While it is the prerogative of the respondents to initiate and pursue appropriate departmental proceedings and recover any dues from the petitioner if found liable, the failure to release the leave encashment in a timely manner is unjustifiable. The petitioner, having fully discharged her duties throughout her tenure and having her service record cleared of any complaints, is entitled to receive the leave encashment amount as a matter of right. The inaction on the part of the respondents has caused significant financial hardship to the petitioner, and further delay is unreasonable. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Sikkim vs. Dr. Mool Raj Kotwal, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 888 has held as under : “26. A three-judges Bench of this Court in ‘State of Rajasthan v. Senior Higher Secondary School, Lacchmangarh’ ((2005) 10 SCC 346) , although in context of Section 29 of Rajasthan Non-Government Education Institutions Act, 1989, interpreted Leave Encashment as ‘nothing but salary for the un- availed leave to the credit of the employee’. Nonetheless, something more is required to understand the full import behind grant of Leave Encashment, which is the benefit after retirement to a devoted employee. Jurisprudentially, leave encashment is grounded in two key principles : equity and economic security. The principle of equity ensures that employees who forgo their right to take leave for the benefit of the organization are not deprived of its monetary value. The principle of economic security treats leave encashment as a form of deferred wages, similar to gratuity or pension benefits. This reinforces the employer's duty to maintain fair labour practices and protects employees' financial rights. 8. In the matter of Punjab State Civil Supplies Corpn. Limited v. Pyare Lal , reported in 2014 SCC OnLine P&H 15012 it was held as under : “9. This reinforces the employer's duty to maintain fair labour practices and protects employees' financial rights. 8. In the matter of Punjab State Civil Supplies Corpn. Limited v. Pyare Lal , reported in 2014 SCC OnLine P&H 15012 it was held as under : “9. In view thereof, we find that the ratio laid down in the said judgments cannot be extended in respect of the claim of leave encashment governed by the Punjab Civil Service Rules or the analogous Rules. In fact, in terms of the conclusion (i) in para No.81 of the judgment in Dr. Ishar Singh's case (supra), the State Government has no right to withhold or postpone pension or the payment on account of commutation of pension. The State is bound to release 100% pension at the time of superannuation. It is conclusion No. (ii) which permits the Government to withhold gratuity or other rerital benefits. The pension is to be paid, may be provisionally, during the pendency of the enquiry. Similarly, conclusion (vii) provides recovery of Government dues from gratuity and other retiral dues. Therefore, the judgment in Dr. Ishar Singh's case (supra), is applicable only in respect of payment of provisional pension pending disciplinary or criminal proceedings and has no applicability in respect of withholding of other retiral benefits. The payment or withholding of other retiral benefits is subject matter of applicable Rules, if any. Since in the present case, Rule 8.21(aa) provides for withholding of leave encashment, the same cannot be released to an employee, as the amount, if any, could be recovered from such benefits.” 9. In the matter of Sukhram Prasad Mani vs. State of Jharkhand and Others reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Jhar 1137 , it has been held as under : “9. It is settled principle of law that retiral benefits are not bounty to be given to the employees after retirement. Rather, it is the right of the employees to get retiral benefits. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has held that it is not mercy appeal before the Court to pass order showing mercy, rather, the Officers who are responsible for not making the retiral benefits in time should be handled very seriously. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para-5 of the judgment passed in case of Dr. Uma Agrawal v. State of U.P., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 438 has held thus: “5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para-5 of the judgment passed in case of Dr. Uma Agrawal v. State of U.P., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 438 has held thus: “5. We have referred in sufficient detail to the Rules and instructions which prescribe the time schedule for the various steps to be taken in regard to the payment of pensions and other retiral benefits. This we have done to remind the various governmental departments of their duties in initiating various steps at least two years in advance of the date of retirement. If the Rules/instructions are followed strictly, much of the litigation can be avoided and retired government servants will not feel harassed because after all, grant of pension is not a bounty but a right of the government servant. The Government is obliged to follow the Rules mentioned in the earlier part of this order in letter and in spirit. Delay in settlement of retiral benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs. Such delays are occurring even in regard to family pension for which too there is a prescribed procedure. This is indeed unfortunate. In cases where a retired government servant claims interest for delayed payment, the Court can certainly keep in mind the time-schedule prescribed in the Rules/instructions apart from other relevant factors applicable to each case.”.” 10. Accordingly, in view of the above, this Court directs the respondents to disburse the leave encashment amount of Rs. 4,26,496/- to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of this order. However, as the departmental inquiry is still pending, the respondents are at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of any financial loss that may be determined as a result of the inquiry, as per the findings of the Inquiry Officer. 11. In addition, considering the undue delay in the payment of the leave encashment, the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount due, and therefore, 6% annual interest is to be awarded on the leave encashment amount from 31.07.2020 (the date of retirement) until the date of actual disbursement. 12. The petition is allowed. The respondents, however, retain the right to proceed with any recovery actions as deemed appropriate following the final outcome of the departmental inquiry. 13. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of.