The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to retirement benefits, such as encashment of earned leave, is determined by the applicable rules and regulations, and delay in seeking such entitlement may not defeat the rights of the petitioners, especially when no third-party rights have accrued.

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.

1. The petitioners who have retired from the service of this Court between February 28, 1986 to September 30,1988 pray for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to give them the benefit of encashment of unutilised earned leave upto 240 days. The respondent contests this claim primarily on the ground that it is belated. On merits, it is pleaded that in view of the amendment of the Rules, the petitioners were not entitled to the accumulation of earned leave beyond a period of 180 days upto October 29, 1985. Thereafter, in view of the subsequent amendment of the rules, the petitioners were entitled to accumulation of earned leave upto 240 days. According to the respondent, the petitioners entitlement to earned leave has been determined according to the Rules and they have been paid the amounts due to them.

2. Counsel for the parties have been heard.

3. Admittedly, a similar controversy had arisen in A.N. Mago and others vs. The Registrar, High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, 1992(3) RSJ 37. It was held that even during the period from March 9, 1973, when the Chief Justice had framed the new rules to October 29, 1985, when the Central Government granted approval, the employees of this Court would be governed by the Punjab Civil Service Rules in so far as the leave etc. was concerned. It is also the admitted position that for the period from October 30, 1985 onwards, the Punjab Rules are applicable. This being so, the claim made by the petitioners has to be sustained.

4. As for the objection of delay, it may be observed that the plea raised on behalf of the respondent is wholly untenable. The petitioners were deprived of the money which was due to them. No third party rights have admittedly accrued. In this situation, it cannot be said that mere delay would defeat the rights of the petitioners. Even otherwise, the decision in A.N. Magos case (supra), having been given, the petitioners. Could have felt that the needful shall be done in their case as well. It Is only when they were not given the requisite relief that they approached this Court through the present writ petition. Furthermore, no interest is being awarded to them. That is adequate penalty for the delay that may be said to have occured.

5. In view In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to compute the earned leave which may. of the respective petitioners. Whatever is found due shatJ be paid to them within three months from the date of a receipt of a copy of this order. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.