1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6700/2009 Prem Ratan vs State of Raj. & Ors. Date of Order: 7th Dec., 2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J. Mr.JS Bhaledira, for the petitioner. Mr. Mukul Singhvi, for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The only dispute involved in this petition is that the petitioner was paid amount of Rs.60,398/- against un- utilized earned leave and according to the respondents that amount has been paid to the petitioner after 7 years of his retirement, which could not have been paid. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner submitted his representation and that was duly considered and, thereafter, directions were issued on 28th Sept., 2006 by the competent authority, copy of which has been placed on record as Annex.5. It is submitted that the petitioner was legally entitled to the amount, though it was paid to the petitioner after delay and it should have been paid in time. The contention of the respondents in reply to the petition is that petitioner retired on 31st May, 2000 and at that time, the petitioner failed to apply for encashment of earned leave. The petitioner submitted application for 2 encashment of earned leave on 11th Sept., 2007 i.e., after gross delay of more than 7 years and, therefore, the petitioner was rightly asked to deposit the amount of Rs.60,398/- as this fact revealed when the issue was examined in accordance with the circular of the Finance Department dated 25th Sept., 2006 carefully. It is also disputed by the respondents that petitioner was entitled to the said amount as per rules. It is apparent from the facts referred above and as well as given in the reply to the writ petition that petitioner represented his case for allowing him the benefit of leave encashment and that was considered by the respondents and, thereafter, the payment order was passed and the amount has been actually paid to the petitioner. By taking a different view on subsequent stage, the respondents cannot claim amount back as petitioner did not mislead the respondents, but he only claimed his amount and at the most it can be delayed claim by the petitioner as he should have claimed at the time of retirement, but for that he could have been dis-entitled himself to claim any interest over the delayed payment. Be it as it may be, I do not find any justification for seeking recovery of the said amount of Rs.60398/- from the petitioner when it has been paid by the respondents without mis-representation or fraud played by the petitioner and after taking a decision to give benefit even after delay. 3 Therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed. The demand raised against the petitioner vide Annex.P/9 dated 20th March, 2009 is quashed and set aside. [PRAKASH TATIA], J. cpgoyal/-