228 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-147-2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 21.04.2026 ABDUL MAJID ... PETITIONER Versus THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present:- Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Sumit Jain, Advocate for the respondent.

*****

SANJIV BERRY, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to release the benefit of Leave Encashment of 300 days un-utilized earned leave to the petitioner, besides seeking writ of certiorari for quashing of order/letter dated 20.01.2026 (Annexure P-18) whereby legal and valid claim of the petitioner for release of his retrial dues i.e leave encashment has been rejected.

2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the petitioner joined as Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate IInd Class on 08.11.1996, got promoted as Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division ) on 01.10.2001 and later was designated as Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 01.03.2008. The petitioner was further promoted as Additional District and Sessions Judge on

01.05.2012. The work and conduct of the petitioner remained excellent during his service career except for three charge-sheets dated 28.02.2023, 19.10.2024 and 19.10.2024 (Annexure P-1, P-2 and P-3 respectively).

2.1 It is averred that the charges are baseless and the petitioner submitted detailed replies thereof. However he was suspended vide orders dated 10.09.2024 (Annexure P-8 and P-9), against which the petitioner submitted detailed representation which however was rejected vide order dated 05.10.2024. The petitioner in the meanwhile retired as Additional District and Sessions Judge on 31.10.2024. On 21.10.2024, the petitioner submitted representation requesting for disbursement of the amount of gratuity which was rejected on 12.11.2024 on the ground that he is not entitled to the same till the conclusion of departmental proceedings vide (Annexure P-13), however he was granted provisional pension as admissible on the basis of his qualifying service. Later 100% provisional pension has been released to the petitioner.

2.2 On 21.10.2024 petitioner submitted representation with the request to release the amount of leave encashment of 300 days unutilized earned leave admissible to him followed by representation dated 19.02.2025 and 28.07.2025 but nothing has been paid except for provisional pension, General Provident Fund and 57 days earned leave. Hence the petition seeking release of amount and quashing of the impugned order dated 20.01.2026 (Annexure P-18) whereby the claim of petitioner for release of leave encashment has been kept pending till the conclusion of the disciplinary matters.

3. On notice, reply was filed by the contesting respondent-High Court admitting the factum of the petitioner being in service on various posts till his retirement. It is submitted that 3 charge-sheets dated 28.02.2023, 19.10.2024 and 19.10.2024 (Annexure P-1, P-2 and P-3 respectively) have been served upon the petitioner and the disciplinary proceedings qua the same are going on. The provisional pension, GPF, and 57 days leave encashment have been released.

3.1 It was submitted that the request of the petitioner for release of leave encashment in lieu of the un-utilized portion of his earned leave has been kept pending till the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings as well as till the finalization of his suspension period which will be determined after culmination of such proceedings. The issue regarding treatment of suspension period is yet to be finalized and in case the said period is treated as the leave of kind due then the leave balance of the petitioner would stand reduced, hence prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5.