9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Entitlement to compensation for loss of salary for the remainder period of tenure as Lokpal. 2. Entitlement to pension with effect from a specific date. 3. Refund of deducted pension amount. 4. Payment of encashment value of unutilized leave. Analysis: 1. The appellant, a former Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court, was appointed as Lokpal under the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 1970. After the repeal of the Act, he ceased to hold the office of Lokpal and filed a writ petition seeking compensation for loss of salary, pension, refund of deducted pension amount, and encashment of unutilized leave. The High Court denied compensation for loss of salary and pension post-repeal but granted relief for the encashment of leave and pension deduction. The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of the Act and the Repealing Act, concluding that the appellant was entitled to compensation for loss of salary due to the abrupt end of his tenure as Lokpal, considering the restrictions on holding any office post-ceasing to be Lokpal. The Court directed the respondents to pay the salary difference to the appellant, emphasizing the need for appropriate compensation in such cases. 2. The Court delved into the impact of the repeal of the Lokpal Act on the appellant's entitlement to emoluments and compensation. It highlighted the restrictions imposed on holding any office after ceasing to be Lokpal and the necessity for compensating the appellant for bearing the burden of disqualification from holding any office. The judgment emphasized the need for adequate compensation for the loss suffered by the appellant due to the sudden end of his tenure, stressing that the government should not control a person's activities without providing suitable compensation. The Court directed the respondents to calculate and pay the salary difference to the appellant but clarified that this ruling did not extend to claiming other allowances or perks as cash. 3. The Court examined the arguments presented by the respondent's counsel regarding the loss of employment as a service contingency and the government's right to abolish posts. It dismissed these arguments, emphasizing the core issue of disqualification from holding any office post-ceasing to be Lokpal and the illogical outcome of denying compensation in such circumstances. The judgment highlighted the importance of compensating the appellant for the restrictions imposed on holding any office after the repeal of the Lokpal Act, rejecting the contention that the appellant had not claimed compensation for future employment loss. The Court asserted its authority to grant relief based on the facts and circumstances presented in a writ petition, ultimately allowing the appeal and modifying the High Court's judgment to provide the appellant with the directed compensation without costs.
|
