JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D.C. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The controversy in the writ petition falls within a very short premise. The petitioner while working as the Manager (Electrical) in Jolaibari Electrical Sub Division under the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. (for short, TSECL) he was admittedly absent from his duty during the period as noted hereunder: (i) 01.01.2014 to 13.02.2014= 44 days; (ii) 23.02.2014 to 05.04.2014= 42 days and (iii) 22.04.2014 to 06.05.2014= 15 days. According to the petitioner he was compelled to take such leave for his illness as was suffering from his disc dislocation. He had applied for sanction of commuted leave on medical ground with necessary medical records after joining the service after each spell of absence. Whenever the petitioner had approached the respondents, particularly the respondent No.3, either by filing the representation or otherwise they had assured him that he would be paid his leave salary shortly but did not happen. It is apparent that between the periods of leave, the petitioner worked intermittently. The petitioner has fairly laid his case by stating that the salary till 31.01.2014 was paid by the respondents, even without formal sanction of leave. But the respondents have not paid the salary from the month of February 2014 till May 2014. Having persuaded by such circumstances, the petitioner had to make the representation to the respondents. The petitioner was insisting for payment of the leave salary. Finally, the respondent No.1, the Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, TSECL issued a show cause notice on 10.06.2014 [Annexure 15 to the writ petition] asking the petitioner to submit his reply why he was absent without prior sanction of leave from the competent authority and when such absence is violation of the conduct rules. The petitioner submitted his reply on 24.06.2014 giving the reasons the he could not report to the duties for his illness. Despite that the respondents did not release his leave salary for the said period. On 27.06.2014, suddenly the petitioner discovered that in his Saving Bank account a sum of Rs.56,715/-had been credited. The petitioner on such discovery addressed a letter to the State Bank of India on 30.06.2014 to ascertain from which source that money had been remitted or transferred to his account. On 27.06.2014, suddenly the petitioner discovered that in his Saving Bank account a sum of Rs.56,715/-had been credited. The petitioner on such discovery addressed a letter to the State Bank of India on 30.06.2014 to ascertain from which source that money had been remitted or transferred to his account. The State Bank of India by a message had informed that by the Cheque No.895734, a sum of Rs.56,715/- was credited in the account of the petitioner. But the petitioner did not know how he was entitled to the said amount which was sent to his account. Finally, on 10.09.2014, the petitioner served a demand notice asking the respondents to pay the leave salary with interest @ 15% otherwise he will be persuaded to institute the legal action. 3. Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted with great emphasis that the petitioner has got adequate leave in his leave account and as such, the said period of absence should have been regularized by grant of leave. Moreover, the petitioner had submitted the leave application with essential medical records etc. He has further submitted that the respondents have not given any reason why they have not sanctioned the leave as yet. For long period, the said leave salary has been paid as no decision was taken on the period of absence as stated above. 4. Mr. D.C. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner was supposed to go on leave with prior sanction of leave from the competent authority, but the petitioner has not done so. For availing the commuted leave on medical ground, prior sanction cannot be insisted on all occasions as an inflexible requisite. When someone would be inflicted by any disease or he would be requiring any medical intervention cannot be known from before. Rule cannot be applied so technically or harshly. A category of leave has been curved out for enabling the Govt. officers/employees avail leave even without any notice. Leave on medical ground falls in this category. 5. Since the commuted leave can be availed in the event the government employee was afflicted by any disease and he had been on medical advice and was confined. If in the credit of the employee there remained adequate leave, it will ordinarily be the duty of the employer to sanction such leave. 5. Since the commuted leave can be availed in the event the government employee was afflicted by any disease and he had been on medical advice and was confined. If in the credit of the employee there remained adequate leave, it will ordinarily be the duty of the employer to sanction such leave. However, from any source or by any scrutiny if it reveals that the medical records as submitted for seeking such leave are altogether false, in that event, of course, the competent authority has the power not to sanction the leave. But under any circumstances, the leave sanctioning authority cannot hold the issue of sanctioning leave for an indefinite period. Here is the case where the petitioner’s prayer for sanctioning the leave has been kept pending for many years. Even in the reply the respondents have not disclosed any reason why are they keeping it pending without taking a decision and on that pretext the leave salary of the petitioner for the month of February 2014 to May 2014 has been withheld. Consequently, the petitioner has been suffering serious prejudice. 6. Mr. D.C. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner was supposed to inform the competent authority about his illness but he had not done so. It is a clear violation, as the employee concerned is bound to furnish at least information as to the illness. That apart, Mr. Nath, learned counsel has submitted that the respondents even without sanctioning the leave had released full pay and allowances for the month of January 2014 and for the intermittent working periods between the three spells of absence. Mr. Nath, learned counsel has submitted that unless the leave is sanctioned and the absence is regularized by the order of the competent authority, the pay and allowances as withheld by the respondents cannot be released. 7. Having perused the records filed along with the writ petition and the reply, it surfaces that the pay and allowances is held up under the direction of the Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, TSECL. From the communication dated 18.03.2014, it further appears that the Chairman Cum Managing Director (CMD) had directed to hold the salary until finalization of absence. From 18.03.2014 till date the respondents have not taken any decision in respect of regularization of the said absence. From the communication dated 18.03.2014, it further appears that the Chairman Cum Managing Director (CMD) had directed to hold the salary until finalization of absence. From 18.03.2014 till date the respondents have not taken any decision in respect of regularization of the said absence. On the contrary, from the letter dated 16.05.2014, it has further surfaced that the petitioner was also alleged of not submitting the reply to the show cause. He was given further seven days time for that purpose. In fact, the petitioner filed the reply immediately after receipt of the show cause notice. Therefore, it appears that the authority i.e. TSECL are not coordinated properly and for which the petitioner has been suffering the predicament as stated. Moreover, the respondents have not stated anywhere in the reply that there were no sufficient leave in the leave account of the petitioner for adjustment of the said absence which the petitioner had to undergo for purpose of recuperation from his illness. As there is no dispute that the petitioner has submitted the proper leave application in the format with necessary medical records, this Court is really surprised why the respondents have refused to sanction the leave of the petitioner. There is no justifiable ground at least from the reply that has not surfaced. 8. In the circumstances, the respondents, particularly the Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, TSECL is directed to release the leave salary of the petitioner for the said period within a period of 30 days from the day when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this order. It is made further clear that the said absence of the petitioner for which the petitioner has already filed the application for leave shall be adjusted from the credited leave of the petitioner. For any reason, if it is found that the petitioner’s credited leave does not cover the entire period of absence, in that event the petitioner’s half pay leave or extraordinary leave may be taken into account with the necessary consequences. 9. The respondents are further directed that in future when an employee genuinely falls prey to disease the similar approach shall not be adopted by the respondents. It does not only frustrate the employee but also jeopardize the administrative process. 10. Having held so, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to cost. 11. It does not only frustrate the employee but also jeopardize the administrative process. 10. Having held so, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to cost. 11. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. D.C. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.