UNION OF INDIA versus JUSTICE S.S. SANDHAWALIA (RETD.) AND VICE VERSA

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 83 · Decided: 11-01-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

+ 
' ' 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
JUSTICE S.S. SANDHAWALIA (RETD.) AND VICE VERSA 
JANUARY 11, 1994 
[A.M. AHMADI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.J 
High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act 1954/High Court Judges 
Rules, 1956-Sections 9,22A, 22B and 22C/Rule 2-Condition of Se1Vice-No 
express provision in the Rules-Applicability of Rules governing se1Vice con-
ditions of !AS Officers-Leave encashment on retirement-Computation 
of-Salary plus dearness allowance admissible-Other allowances not to be 
included-Entitlement of Judge for staff car and 150 litres of petrof-Obli-
gatory on the State to provide-Such obligation cannot be shelved by making 
cash payment of fu:ed amount in lieu thereof-Central Government duty--
Bound to ensure compliance of the provisions by State Governments. 
Delay in payment of dues-Interest allowed thereon. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
The appellant retired as Chief Justice of Patna High Court on 
27.7.1987. His retiral benefits were released to him. However, he had 
grievance in respect of non-payment/short payment of certain allowances, E 
viz. (i) the full amount of gratuity due to him was not released; (ii) while 
computing the cash equivalent of leave due to him at the date of his 
retirement, the cash equivalent of the various allowances drawn by him 
just before his retirement had not been included; (iii) he was not paid the 
conveyance allowance payable to him under section 22B of the High Court 
Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954; and (iv) his clai~ for reimbur-
F 
sement of medical charges had not been cleared. 
The appellant -;:riginal petitioner, therefore, filed a Writ Petition 
before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. During the pendency of the 
said Writ Petition, the authorities substantially satisfied the grievance of 
the appellant in regard to claims No. (i) and (iv), but contested the claims G 
at (ii) and (iii). The High Court held that (i) sumptuary allowance of Rs. 
500 per month, (ii) compensatory allowance of Rs. 900 per month admis-
sible under Article 222(2), and (iii) conveyance charges at the rate of Rs. 
3500 per month were includible in computing the cash equivalent of leave 
at the date of retirement. The High Court also accepted the claim of Rs. H 
83 
84 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1994)1 S.C.R. 
A 3500 p.m. in lieu of conveyance facility as the State of 8ihar did not provide 
a staff car as admissible under section 228 of the 1954 Act at the same 
rate of Rs. 3500 per month. The marginal claims under (i) and (iv) were 
finalised by the High Court by ordering grant of interest at 12% per annum 
on the balance gratuity amount of Rs. 51,000 which was paid in July 1988 
B 
c 
D 
i.e. approximately one year after his retirement. The High Court also 
allowed interest on the difference payable to him on his claims under (ii) 
and (iii) having been partly allowed. 
So far as his claim under (iv) i.e. reimbursement of medical charges, 
the High Court allowed the same. 
Dissatisfied with the view taken by the High Court in regard to 
claims under (ii) and (iii) above, the Union of India and the Judge 
preferred these cross appeals. 
Disposing of the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. The kinds of leave admissible under the All India Services 
...I,., 
(Leave) Rules, 1955 (1955 Rules) are similar to those admissible under the 
High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, except study leave 
an~ maternity leave to which there is no reference in the 1954 Act. There-
E 
fore, in the absence of an express provision in the 1954 Act, the question 
of cash equivalent of leave salary must be determined by the rules govern-
ing a mem_ber of the Indian Administrative Service, in this case, of the rank 
of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India, stationed at New Delhi. 
This is· in accord with Rule 2 of the High Court Judges Rules, 1956 (1956 
Rules). [99-F-G] 
F 
Union of India v. Gumam Singh, A.l.R. (1982) S.C. 1265, relied on. 
2. The leave credited to the account of a Judge under Section 4 of 
the 1954 Act is conceptually 'earned leave' even though that expression is 
G not used in the said statute. ~e entitlement to cash equivalent of leave 
salary by a retired High Court Judge must be determined on the basis that 
Rule 208 of the 1955 Rules made applicable by virtue of Rule 2 of the 1956 
Rules. Rule 208 of the 1955 Rule in no uncertain terms provides that while 
>-
the cash equivalent of leave salary shall include dearness allowance, it 
shall not include (i) city compensatory allowanc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.