The main legal point established is that a government servant compulsorily retired in the normal course, not as a measure of penalty, is entitled to the benefit of encashment of privilege leave under the relevant rules.

R.P. Vyas, J.-The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming relief therein that the respondents may be directed to extend benefit of the encashment of privilege leave to him alongwith interest @12% of the delayed payment of unutilised privilege leave from the date of his retirement.

2. Glaring facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 07.07.1967 on the post of Constable. Thereafter, vide order dated 13.03.1975, he was promoted to the post of Head Constable by the respondent-department. Then, vide order dated 010.1983, he was promoted to the post of Asstt. Sub-Inspector and later on he was also promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector.

3. Thereafter, the Dy. Inspector General of Police vide order dated 212.2000, while exercising the powers conferred by Rule 53(1) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1996"), on completion of 25 years of qualifying service, compulsorily retired the petitioner from service w.e.f. 312.2000.

4. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that after the retirement from services, he was paid retiral benefits by the respondents, but did not pay benefit of the encashment of privilege leave to him. Being aggrieved by the denial of benefit of the encashment of privilege leave, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents, requesting therein that he is entitled to the benefit of encashment of leave and the same may be extended to him. It is argued by the learned Counsel for, the petitioner, that the respondents have not been extended benefit of encashment of privilege leave till date and did not pay any heed to the representation, hence this writ petition.

5. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a Government Servant on retirement from services under Rule 91-B of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter refereed to as "the Rules of 1951") is entitled to cash payment in lieu of his unutilised privilege leave on the date of retirement. As such, the petitioner is fully entitled to the cash payment of unutilised privilege leave at his credit on the date of retirement. It is further argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no distinction can be made in the Government Servant who retired from service on achieving the age of superannuation and the Government Servant who are compulsory retired under the service rules. The compulsory retirement is not a punishment whether on attaining the age of superannuation or by way of compulsory retirement.

6. Controverting these submissions, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the State Government, Department of Finance (Rules Division) vide its Notification dated 20.08.2001 (Annex. R/1) by which some amendment was made in Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and named as Rajasthan Service (Amendment) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter refereed to as "the Rules of 2001). Rule 91-B

(1) which was substituted as under:

"A Government servant on retirement from service on superannuation, invalid, compensation pension or retirement pension under Rules 50 and 53 of Rajasthan Civil services (Pension) Rules, 1996 shall be paid cash equivalent to leave salary in respect of the period of unutilised privilege leave not exceeding 300 days at his/her credit at the time of retirement.

Note.-The benefit under this Sub-rule shall not be admissible to the Government Servants retired compulsorily as a measure of penalty under the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958".

7. Relying upon the aforesaid rule, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that it is clear that if compulsory retirement is made as a measure of penalty under the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958, then benefit under the sub-rule is not admissible to the petitioner.

8. It is further argued by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the service career of the petitioner was