LexSHIV DAYAL SHRIVASTAVA versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SHIV· DAYAL SHRIVASTAVA
v.
UNION OF INDIA
February 7, 1984
[S. MURTAZA FAz,L ALI, A. VARADARAJAN AND
RANOANATH MISRA, JJ.]
High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, J9S4-S•. 5 (3) and 9 (I)
read with Rule 20B of All India Services (Leave) Rules J9SS-Interpretatlon of.
For calculating cash 'equivalent of leave salary admissible to a Judge under Rule
208, Ss. 5 (3) and 9 (1) of the Act would not apply.
In Union of lndid v. Gurnam Singh [1982] 3 S.C.R. 7c0, this. Court deci-
ded that under the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 Judges
were entitled to cash equivalent of leave salary in respect of the period or earned
leave at their credit on the date of retirement' as provided under rule ZOB of the
AlJ India Service (Leave) Rules, 1955. The two question which arose for consi-
deration in this pe!ilion under Art. 32 filed by a retired Chief Justice of Madhya
Pradesh High Court were (I) whether in view oftbe provisions of s. 5(3) of tho
Act, the limit has to be confined to five months equal to 150 days and not 180
days as in Rule 20B ; and (2) whether for calculating the equivalent of leave
salary admissible to a Judge the provisions of s. 9 (I) of the Act would apply?
.
.
Allowing the petition and answering the questioris in ~he negative.
HBLD : Tho ratio of Gurnam Slngh's case has not been disputed.
It would necessarily mean acceptance of the position that the Act did not make
provision for payment of the retirement beriefit contemplated under rule 20B ;
otherwise rule 20B could not have been applied. For calculating the benefits
under rule 20B, s. S (3) of the A<"t is not not relevant and in case in the leave
account maintained ~nder s. 4 of the Act leave is due1 the benefit under rule
20B has to be worked out subject to the upper limit of 180 days, equal to six
months [857 B-C]
· Once it is held that the benefit under rule 20B is not controtied by
Chapter II of the Act, the, manner of calculatipn indicated in s. 9 (I) of the
Act would also not apply. [857 ll]
Tho pri~c!ples governing the cash equivalent of leave would apply not
on~y to the petitioner but also to Judges who have already retired or who may
retue hereafter, from the date from which this -facility was made aVaitable to
the members of the Central Services holding the- rank of Secretary to the
Govornm~nt of India or its equivalent. [857 E-G)
853
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
, c
D
E
F
G
854
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1984] 2 s.c.R.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 8991 of 1983.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
Petitioner in person alongwith Mukul mudgal
K. Parasraµ, Attorney General, K.G. Bhagat Addi. Solicitor
General, R.N. Poddar for the Respondent.
The Judgment Of the Court was delivered by
RANGANATH MISRA, J.
Shri Shiv Dayal Shrivastava, the peti-
tioner before us in this application under Article 32 of the Consti-
tution praying for a writ of mandamus to the Union of India,
retired as Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court with
effect from February 28, 1978.
At the time of retirement he was
drawing salary of Rs. 4,000 per month as provided under Consti-
tution. This Court in the case of Union of India v. Gurnam Singh('>
decided that under the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service)
'
Act; 1954 ('Act' for short), Judges were entitled to cash equivalent
of leave salary in respect of the period of earned leave at their credit
on the date of retirement as provided in Rule 20B of the All India
Services (Leave) Rules, 1955 ('Leave Rules' for short). The Accoun-
tant General of Madhya Pradesh authorised-the petitioner to draw
cash equivalent of leave salary amounting to Rs. 15,240 by his
communication dated July 17, 1982. The peti_tioner informed the
Accountant General that he was drawing the amount as indicated
in the communication without prejudice to his . right to claim
]ls: 24,000 to which sum under the law he was entitled.
On July
19, 1982, the petitioner was authorised to draw a further sum of
Rs. 750 thus in all Rs. 15;990 only. On February 2, 1983, the
Union of India in the Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs
indicated to the several authorities including the Registrars of all
the High Courts that while in view of the decision of this Court
referred to above, the Central Government were advised that Judges
of the High Courts were entitled to payment of cash equivalent of
leave salary in respect of the period of earned Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.