1994 (1) TMI 301 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Gratuity payment
2. Computation of cash equivalent of leave
3. Entitlement under Section 22B of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954
4. Reimbursement of medical charges

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Gratuity Payment:
The original petitioner retired as the Chief Justice of the High Court of Patna on 27th July, 1987. His retiral benefits were released to him but his grievance survived in respect of the full amount of gratuity due to him not being released. The High Court noticed that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the authorities had substantially satisfied his grievance regarding gratuity except for a marginal matter, which was dealt with by ordering the grant of interest at 12% per annum on the balance gratuity amount of Rs. 51,000, which was paid in July 1988, approximately one year after his retirement. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order directing payment of interest at 12% per annum on the balance of the death-cum-retirement gratuity, as the delay in payment was unjustified.

2. Computation of Cash Equivalent of Leave:
The original petitioner contended that in computing the cash equivalent of leave due to him at the date of his retirement, the authorities were bound to include various allowances such as sumptuary allowance, compensatory allowance, city compensatory allowance, and the cash equivalent of perquisites admissible under Sections 22A and 22B of the 1954 Act. The authorities, however, argued that leave encashment is governed by Rule 20B of the All-India Services (Leave) Rules, 1955, which excludes allowances other than dearness allowance. The High Court held that all allowances except city compensatory allowance and house rent allowance were includible in calculating the cash equivalent of leave salary payable to a judge of the High Court. The Supreme Court, however, reversed this finding, holding that allowances such as sumptuary allowance, allowance under Article 222(2), and allowances under Sections 22A, 22B, and 22C of the 1954 Act are not includible in computing the cash equivalent of leave salary due to a Chief Justice or Judge of the High Court.

3. Entitlement under Section 22B of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954:
The original petitioner claimed that he was entitled to the facility of a staff car and 150 litres of petrol every month or actual monthly consumption of petrol, whichever was less, under Section 22B of the 1954 Act. He argued that since the State of Bihar did not provide him with a staff car during his tenure as Chief Justice, he was entitled to cash equivalent of the conveyance facility denied to him. The High Court accepted this claim and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,500 per month, minus the cost of 150 litres of petrol. The Supreme Court upheld this part of the High Court's order, agreeing that the failure to provide a staff car was a breach of the service condition enshrined in the statute.

4. Reimbursement of Medical Charges:
The original petitioner also claimed reimbursement of medical charges, which had not been cleared. The State of Punjab, which discharged the liability in respect of medical reimbursement, contended that since the petitioner had settled in Panchkula outside the State of Punjab, it was not liable to reimburse him. The High Court repelled this contention and allowed the claim for medical reimbursement. The Supreme Court did not find it necessary to delve into this issue as the State of Punjab did not appeal against the High Court's finding.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the original petitioner but allowed the appeal of the Union of India, reversing the High Court's judgment to the extent it held that all allowances except city compensatory allowance and house rent allowance are includible in calculating the cash equivalent of leave salary. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order regarding the payment of compensation for the failure to supply a staff car in terms of Section 22B of the 1954 Act. The litigation was considered of a representative character, and no order as to costs was made throughout.