UNION OF INDIA Vs. JUSTICE S N SAXENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Civil Appeals and the Writ Petition involve a short question as regard interpretation of Rule 20B of the All India Services (Leave) Rules, 1955 read with Rule 2 of the High Court Judges (Condition of Service) Rules, 1956.

(2.) 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 form Judicial Service quota. Most of them were to reach the age of superannuation in Higher Judicial Services of the respective State a few days 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 some of the Judges 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 appeal before us.

(3.) An application under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners herein, who are retired Judges of the Calcutta 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 on the ground of pendency of the special leave petitions before this Court.