JUDGMENT 1. 1. The petitioner was working as Additional District and Sessions Judge when he was compulsorily retired with effect from 13.11.2000. Even after a lapse of three years, the petitioner has not been given the benefit of cash equivalent to leave salary in respect of the period of un-utilized privilege leave. It is well settled by catena of authorities including the decisions of this Court in Deen Dayal Khunteta v. The State of Rajasthan and another, 1995 (2) WLC (Raj.) 22 : [1995(7) SLR 112 (Raj.)], and Sukh Ram Jatav v. State of Rajasthan and others, CW 4788/2003 decided on 14.11.2003 that a person retired compulsorily by the State is entitled to retiral benefits. In Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and another, JT 2003 (6) SC 20 : [2003(4) SLR 706 (SC)], the Supreme Court has taken the view that persons retired compulsorily do not lose any part of their benefits that they may have earned during their service, as compulsory retirement involves no penal consequences and is not considered as punishment perse. This being the legal position, there was no valid reason for the State to deprive the petitioner of the benefit of cash equivalent to leave salary for the period of un- utilised privilege leave for 202 days. 2. The High Court vide communication dated 19.6.2001 informed the Government of Rajasthan that the following Officers, who had been retired compulsorily, had applied for leave encashment : Name Days 1. S.L. Gupta 203 2. V.K. Agarwal 103 3. Tek Chand 153 4. S.D. Gupta 202 5. B.M. Solera 288 6. C.P. Nahar 274 7. J.P. Chhangani 110 8. P.C. Jain 290 9. Smt. Kusum Bhandari 297 10. O.P. Sharma-1 258 11. N.P. Upadhyaya 63 12. S.K. Jain 291 13. S.S. Sharma 294 14. B.M. Chouhan 46 15. K.R. Jatav 256 16. P.D. Bairwa 266 The High Court, by the aforesaid communication, required the Government to pay the amount due to them on account of leave encashment. 3. It seems that due to the erroneous view of the State Government that the benefit of cash equivalent to leave salary for 'he period of un-utilized privilege leave is not available to a compulsorily retired employee, they have been deprived of payments which are legally due to them. 3. It seems that due to the erroneous view of the State Government that the benefit of cash equivalent to leave salary for 'he period of un-utilized privilege leave is not available to a compulsorily retired employee, they have been deprived of payments which are legally due to them. In spite of the 'act that the aforesaid communication of the High Court was sent to the Government in the year 2001, the payments have not been made to the aforesaid Officers. There was no justification whatsoever for the State Government to withhold the payments due to the aforesaid Officers retired compulsorily. Payments to these Officers are due to them and must be paid expeditiously. 4. In the circumstances, it is directed that the petitioner and the aforesaid fifteen officers be paid cash equivalent to leave salary in respect of their respective periods of un-utilized privilege leave within four weeks from today. Since the aforesaid Officers have been denied the payment for over a period of three years, we direct that each of the aforesaid Officers shall also be entitled to receive interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date they were entitled to receive cash equivalents to leave salary for period of un-utilized privilege leave till date the payments are made to them.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.Order accordingly. *******