Retired High Court Judge Entitled To Leave Encashment When He Completes Tenure As Chairman Of Railway Claims Tribunal: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Union of India to calculate and disburse the leave encashment amount due to a former Judge of the High Court, who on retiring was appointed as Chairman of the Railway Claims Tribunal and served in the position for over two years.
A Single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum partly allowed the petition filed by Justice B Padmaraj (retired) and said “This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for grant of leave encashment in respect of the earned leave standing to his credit during his tenure as Chairman of the Railway Claims Tribunal.”
The petitioner had approached the court after he was denied cash equivalent of salary for the earned leave standing to his credit and an additional pension. Relying on sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989, it was argued that the earned leave encashment received upon retiring from the judiciary should not be considered in calculating the leave encashment accrued during his tenure as Chairman of the Railway Claims Tribunal. Seeking pension it was claimed that the Board made an error in clubbing the pensions from two distinct offices, contrary to the provisions of Rule 8(2) of Rules, 1989.
The Union of India opposed the plea contending that the petitioner had already availed of the maximum period of 300 days of leave encashment upon retiring as a High Court Judge, and hence, cannot claim leave encashment again. It was also argued that Pension Rules stipulate that if a person who is already drawing a pension, and if the total pension exceeds the ceiling limit of Rs.4,80,000 per annum, no additional pension is payable for the services rendered as Chairman.
The court noted that Rule 8(2), stipulates that if a person appointed as Chairman is already drawing a pension, and the combined pension exceeds the ceiling limit of Rs.4,80,000 per annum, then the individual is not entitled to any additional pension for services rendered as Chairman.
The court agreed with the respondents and said the endorsement issued by the respondents declining the petitioner's claim for additional pension is justified and does not warrant interference. “Since the petitioner does not have a legal right to claim pension beyond the specified cap, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued in this case. Mandamus is only applicable when there is a failure to perform a legal duty which the petitioner is entitled to enforce.”
Court then turned to Rule 6(1)(i) of the 1989 Rules which provides that a person appointed to the Tribunal as Chairman is entitled to earn leave at the rate of 15 days for every completed year of service.
“The petitioner, having served as Chairman for a tenure of two years and eight months, is entitled to leave encashment independently of the leave encashment received upon retirement as a High Court Judge.”
Accordingly it allowed the petition in part.
Appearance: Advocate Sachin B S for Petitioner.
ASG Shanthi Bhushan for R1.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 293
Case Title: Justice B Padmaraj AND Union of India & ANR