The authorities, however, companytend that leave encashment is governed by Rule 20 B of the All India Services Leave Rules, 1955, hereafter alluded to as the 1955 Rules, read with Rule 2 of the High Court Judges Rules, 1956, hereafter referred to as the 1956 Rules, and as such except dearness allowance numberother allowance is includible in companyputing the said benefit of leave salary.
The Union Government had companyceded the demand for the grant of rupees one lakh by way of death cum retirement gratuity and had paid the balance of Rs 51,000 to the original petitioner.
The precise case put forth by the original petitioner in regard to his grievance set out at ii and iii above was that in companyputing the cash equivalent of leave due to him at the date of his retirement the authorities were bound to include the i sumptuary allowance of Rs 500 per month ii companypensatory allowance of Rs 900 per month admissible under Article 222 2 of the Constitution of India, iii the city companypensatory allowance of Rs 75 per month and iv the cash equivalent of the perquisites admissible under Sections 22 A and 22 B of the High Court Judges Conditions of Service Act, 1954, hereinafter called the 1954 Act.
As both the Union of India and the original petitioner were dissatisfied with the view taken by the High Court in regard to claims under ii and iii above, they have preferred these appeals to the extent the High Court has allowed the claim against the former and disallowed a part of the claim of the latter.
4838 of 1988 lodged by Shri Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, retired Chief Justice of the said High Court and later of the High Court of Patna Bihar .
So also the High Court allowed him interest on the difference payable to him on his claims under ii and iii having been partly allowed.
22 B. Every Judge shall be entitled to a staff car and one hundred and fifty litres of petrol per month every month or the actual companysumption of petrol whichever is less 22 C. The Chief Justice and each of the other Judges of every High Court shall be entitled to a sumptuary allowance of five hundred rupees per month and three hundred rupees per month respectively.
For the sake of companyvenience we will hereafter refer to him as the original petitioner.
The grievances stated at ii and iii above were, however, companytested by the authorities as inadmissible.
So far as his claim under iv is companycerned, the State of Punjab, which discharged the liability in respect of medical reimbursement of the original petitioner as a special case, companytended that since the latter had settled in Panchkula outside the State of Punjab, though in the vicinity of Chandigarh, it was number liable to reimburse him and would number be bound to do so in future.
The marginal claims under 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 i.e. approximately one year after his retirement.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AHMADI, J. These are two cross appeals arising out of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on January 12, 1990 in Civil Writ Petition No.
His retiral benefits were released to him but his grievance survived in respect of the following the full amount of gratuity due to him was number released while companyputing 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 number been included he was number paid the amount payable to him under Section 22 B of the High Court Judges Conditions of Service Act, 1954 and his claim for reimbursement of medical charges had number been cleared.
The facts giving rise to these two appeals, the first by the Union Government and the second by the original petitioner, briefly stated, are as under.
The original petitioner retired as the Chief Justice of the High Court of Patna on July 27, 1987.
