LexSHRI JUSTICE S.K. RAY versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
rA Lr;~. Ntlt w 1·rr:·.; w.,,,..,,. 1.SJ.!R.I.JM~n~~J'~ .. J}. JV>..y,. i, ··.;•, l'I ,, .. ,. 1n1.·1·" i
B
L
"1t1
nontrP~ftJ:.tt i<» ;"Jt.no ~rh JndJ ~nii,,;l;\q{1:J nt
~..i-'u·J tn-:u J·tq ·~1: ·i-, . ~ ,,;
1
'•
! qn 1ri:..~"11 .. rv.i1 •)! [y,.SJAJsi9f;.Q£!~.~-~1J\NP QJl~·.c·,,1 ..•. 1 .<J ,,.'" ,. •. ,
1!;:-)fP ..,1t..:n·.,!L.:c!". .. ..:dJ tl1 i!1//~'n1~ Oi
~l ~J.-L~il;.1 ··JJ<II.:H > ·;d· ·i• L.:Jr>·_, ·'·.J•.ll11·1!
,; , [
'•·'! 11'1'.;tfr• !O tii!:r]t;J!!.'' :,rjf A~NPfl.~X'. ~q,}pq3, '' 1 • .. ! 'i•'.,L 'Wl :i: .1'1• .rj
.-iJ~qd> l061'.:lb1 Ii£ o1 blfi.'.!'fl :rn1-ti..ll «J.;111·.u ni 'Jun•• uJ It; di ·r,-,t .. r •1·:· ·,·;
. · [S. RAJE~DRABA~lJ AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI JJ.)
•)1 :,,Ji•h ... iUf' JI.JI! (./Ill 1.011 ;11·..:;;:Jh()1,r.11 Ihf\J ti()J"'.lJi'JHV',1 L
t.:·Jl~..Jb'JI r,'Jlf1 lt~f'.l!J
r.I H
1..itt..>dqHttl"' t.£11 rJ".'"Ji 11':.1~ cir! 'to nufJbiPi:n1";t '~o T;;L11 1
· .. tf1 I
.~Ji·rt Jf: d• :;L1i1ifn 1;
;.;;i1""S~'r1/JcelfJ\JT:·;Lnoq<·J·-to1)u!J11n, 'Jfl1 oJ im·).,. :"·· \''' :·,.;; .. ••"' "·
':11!! Lim ::ibiu; 1~<' ti Jr .1l '.;r>ib11,.n/ .. b'.:niclcut -.:d ionn-;, 1·Jb1n U'l<r 11qm1 .,,; ,
Orissa lokpal and lokayukta Act, 1970/0rissctJL'ofipaf'ahd lokafukta
(Repeal) Act, 1985:
n~,·uollG l&~qq/'
. _.., .rl ?
Appointment of Lokpal for 5 years-Act repealed-Incumbent ceased to
hold office before expiry of term-Ineligible for further employment as per
terms of appointment-On Writ Petition claiming for compensation and other
D reliefs, High Court allowed certC'in reliefs but denied compensation-On appeal,
Held, since the incumbent was put to disadvantage by repeal of the enactment,
he is entitled to compensation for carrying a burden of not holding any office/
position after he ceased to hold office of Lokpal, but not for loss of office-
State Government to ass?SS relief for payment to incumbent-Direction issued
E
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226:
Writ Petition-Power of High Court to grant relief-Held, High Courts
have power to mould relief and grant the same.
Appellant, Ex-Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court, was appointed
p as Lokpal under the provisions of the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayukta Act,
1970 for a period .of S years. Pursuant to repeal of the Act, appellant
ceased to hold office of Lokpal before completion of tenure. Appellant
._.
file~. a: writ petition claiming for compensation and relief. High Court
ord~red certain relief; however, it denied compensation for loss of salary
for the remainder period of tenure of service and for payment of pension
G for the same period. Hence this appeal.
It ~as contended for the State that since right to abolish the post
was available with the Government, the appellant was not entitled to claim
salary for the remainder tenure of service; and that appellant claimed
H compensation for loss for the present term but not for loss of future
434
JUSTICE S.K. RAY v. STATE OF ORISSA
. 435
·'employment, as such not entitled for any relief.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
,. . HELD: ).I. The crux of the matter in the instant case is the effect
, of the disqualification of not holding any office after ceasing to hold., the
A
... office of the Lokpal. Appellant is deprived of all other offices or busin,ess B
interest when he hold the office of the Lokpal and the office, Which he
hold, is a_lso denied to him by reason of the Repealing Act. (440-G) ,,
,·~"· .-·
•• ·'
'"'
',
'-,
!
•
..;,
"
'
'
•
•1
:
1.2. Under the scheme of the enactment appellant cannofhold any
office of trust 'or profit or he shall. not be a memb~r of the i~gislature,
c;:e_ntral 11r State, or any o_ther positio!', which may ~ome,in conflict with C
the office of Lokpal .. Having deprived. himself of holding any other 9ffice
,9r :position ~hjcb may co~e in conHici wi_th the office of Lokpal,, h~.·~~n~ot
,.,also hold any office even after ~e c_eases to bold. the_office of the Lokpal.
Appellant by reason of holding the office of Lokpal earli~r ~as. incur.red
disqualification not to hold any office in terms of Section 5(3) of the Act., .D
That means .there is a disability attached to him .for all time .to come
thereafter. The said disability would not disappear on the repeal of the
enactment, the appellant is put to a disadvantage by reason of holding the
office of Lokpal, which was putto 'an end ·abruptly by repealing enactment.
In such event, he certainly becomes entitled to compensation if not for loss
of oExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.