S.K. Dua vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 9 January, 2008
7. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that no
such order was passed by the competent authority and the learned
counsel for the petitioners was not able to rebut the said fact.
Consequently, the petitioners herein could not have withheld the leave
encashment and the money ought to have been released to the
respondent soon after his retirement. We also do not agree with the
submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that only
because there is no Rule for grant of interest of leave encashment, the
respondent would not be entitled to the same. Learned counsel has
not been able to point out any rule to the contrary, which creates a bar
for grant of interest in case due amount is released after a considerable
delay. It has been clearly held by the Apex Court in several
judgments including S.K.Dua vs. State of Haryana & Anr., (2008) 3
SCC 44 that if there are Statutory Rules or Administrative Instructions
occupying the field, an employee could claim payment of interest
relying on such rule, but even in the absence of any Statutory Rules or
W.P.(C) No.9394/2017 Page 6 of 8
Administrative Instructions or Guidelines, an employee can claim
interest under Part-III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19
and 21 of the Constitution of India.