JUSTICE B.PADMARAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a retired Judge of this Court, has filed the present petition challenging the orders dtd. 22/2/2011 and 1/2/2012, wherein the second respondent rejected the petitioner's request for payment of pension and leave encashment.

(2.) The facts of the case are as under:

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989,(for short "Rules, 1989"), the petitioner is entitled to receive the cash equivalent of the salary in respect of earned leave standing to his credit. Furthermore, the counsel pointed out that sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the saidRules, 1989 entitles the petitioner to leave encashment not exceeding 300 days. It was contended 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. In regard to the pension, the petitioner's counsel argued that the statutory ceiling of Rs.4,80,000.00 per annum is arbitrary, oppressive, and unconstitutional. It was further argued that the respondents made an error in clubbing the pensions from two distinct offices, contrary to the provisions of Rule 8(2) of Rules, 1989.