RATAN LAL PATNI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents on 02. 07. 2002 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to make payment of unutilised privilege leave for 159 days to the petitioner with all consequential benefits and with interest @ 24% p. a. on the said amount and penal interest w. e. f. 08. 11. 1995.

(2.) THE facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under: i) That the petitioner while working on the post of Senior Reader in the office of respondent No. 3 (THE District & Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, Distt. Chittorgarh) was retired compulsorily under Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short, "the Rules, 1951) vide order dated 6/8. 11. 1995. ii) That further case of the petitioner is that after the compulsory retirement he was paid all retiral benefits but was not paid the payment of unutilised privilege leave which is admissible under Rule 91 of the Rules of 1951 though a period of seven years has elapsed. iii) Further case of the petitioner is that when he was not paid the payment of unutilised privilege leave, he submitted a representation on 10. 1. 96 requesting therein that in view of the law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deen Dayal Khunteta vs. THE State of Rajasthan (1), the petitioner was entitled for grant of amount of unutilised privilege leave. iv) Further case of the petitioner is that he again submitted applications to the respondent No. 3 (THE Dist. Judge, Pratapgarh) from time to time and also personally requested him for grant of payment of unutilised privilege leave. Copies of applications dtd. 19. 12. 1998 and 13. 7. 99 are marked as Annex. 3 and 3a respectively. v) Further case of the petitioner is that since payment of unutilized privilege leave was not made by the respondents, therefore, he gave a notice for demand of justice on 19. 2. 2002 (Annex. 4 ). vi) Further case of the petitioner is that since payment was not made to him, he sent various reminders to the respondents. vii) Further case of the petitioner is that even the person who is retired compulsorily under Rule 244 (2) of the Rules of 1951, is also entitled for grant of unutilized privilege leave and hence, this writ petition with the abovementioned prayer.

(3.) A perusal of Rule 91b (1) of the Rules of 1951 clearly shows that it provides that even a Government Servant who is retired compulsorily is entitled to payment of unutilized privilege leave.