LexUNION OF INDIA versus JUSTICE (RETD.) S. N. SAXENA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
" 1 U.O.L v. JUSTICE (RETD.) S.N. SAXENA 283 T.L.V. Iyer, S.B. Sanyal, Ms. Shobha Dixit, Manoj Swarup, Ms. Nidhi A Agarwal, B.K. Prasad, S.N. Terdol, Pradyot Kumar Chakravarty, Shrish Kumar Misra, Anish Kumar Gupta, Tara Chandra Sharma, V.B. Joshi (NP), Sushii Kumar Jain (NP), G.S. Chatterjee (NP), Goodwill lndeevar (NP) and Ashok K. Srivastava for the appearing parties. The following Order of the Court was delivered : These Civil Appeals and the Writ Petition involve a short question as regard interpretation of Rule 208 of the All India Services (Leave) Rules, 1955 read with Rule 2 of the High Court Judges (Condition of Service) Rules, 1956. B c The respondents herein who were the writ petitioners before the High Court as also the writ petitioners before us were appointed as Judges of the High Court. They have since retired. They were elevated to the High Court from Judicial Service quota. Most of them were to reach the age of superannuation in Higher Judicial Services of the respective State a few days D or a few months prior to their elevation to the High Court. It is not in dispute that in terms of the rules governing the conditions of service framed by the respective States; retirement benefits as also the leave encashment benefits are deposited in their account. It was so done in the case of all the writ petitioners. After their elevation most of them expressed their desire to deposit the said amount in the Treasury. Curiously enough, whereas in the cases of E some of the Judge such request was acceded to but in the case of the writ petitioners the same had been turned down. As despite demand they were not paid the balance of the amount by way of difference of the leave encashment, writ petitions came to be filed before the Allahabad High Court. The said writ applications have been allowed. Aggrieved, the Union of India is in F appeal before us. An application under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners herein, who are retired Judges of the Ca)cutta High Court, as their requests for payment of the balance sum and/or permitting them to deposit the amount drawn by them in the Treasury was turned down G on the ground of pendency of the special leave petitions before this Court. The contention of Union of India in all these appeals as also writ petition is that the amount in question having been withdrawn by the writ petitioners, keeping in view the concept of "one time settlement" engrafted in Rule 208 of the All India Services (Leave) Rules, 1955, they are not H 284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) 2 S.C.R. A · entitled to any further amount. It is not in dispute that the conditions of service of a Judge of High Court is governed by the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. No specific provision exists therein as regards encashment of the unavailed leave. The said benefit, however, is conferred upon the High Court B Judges in terms of Rule 2 of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1956 read with Rule 208 of the All India Services (Leave) Rules, 1955. c Rule 2 of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1956 reads thus : "2. The conditions of services of a Judge of a High Court for which no express provision has been made in the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, shall be and shall from the commencement of the Constitution be deemed to have been, D determined by the rules for the time being applicable to a member of the Indian Administrative Service holding the rank of Secretary to the Government of the State in which the principle seat of the High Court is situated: E F G H Provided that, in the case of a Judge of the High Court of Delhi and a Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana the conditions of service shall be determined by the rules for the time being applicable to a member of the Indian Administrative Service on deputation to the Government of India holding the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India stationed at New Delhi: Provided further that, in respect of facilities for medical treatment and accommodation in hospitals the provisions of the All India Service (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1954, in their application to Judge, shall be deemed. to have taken effect from January 26, 1950: Provided also that where at the request of the President, any Judge undertakes to discharge any function outside his normal duties in an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.