RAJAMONY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner while practicing as Senior Advocate of this Court was appointed as Member of the Kerala Public Men's Corruption (Investigations and Inquiries) Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') on 10th March, 1992. After completing his full term of office of five years he retired on 10th March, 1996. Petitioner claimed benefit of reimbursement of expenses for medical treatment on a par with me retired judges of the High Court. The request of the petitioner contained in his letter dated 5.4.1997 was forwarded to the Government by the Secretary to the Commission as per Ext. P4. By Ext. P5 the Government rejected the above request. It is Exhibit P5 that is under challenge in this Original Petition.

(2.) In order to .appreciate the argument of the petitioner it is necessary to refer to the salient features of the Statute, namely, the Kerala Public Men's Corruption (Investigations and Inquiries) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Under S.4(1) of the Act the Governor shall constitute a Commission consisting of three members for the purpose of conducting investigations and inquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The appointments are to be made on the advice tendered by the Chief Minister in consultation with the Chief Justice and the Leader of Opposition. One of the members shall be a person who is qualified to be appointed as Judge of the High Court. According to S.6(3) of the Act, a member shall have the like status, shall be entitled to the same salary, allowances and pension and shall be subject to same conditions of service as a Judge of the High Court of Kerala. S.32 of the Act confers power to make rules provided for, among other things, for the conditions of service of the members of the Commission. Accordingly, the Kerala Public Men's Corruption (Investigations and Inquiries) Conditions of Service of Members of the Commission Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') have been framed. Under R.3 a member shall be entitled to the same perquisites as of a Judge of the High Court of Kerala from time to time. R.5 provides that a member is entitled to surrender leave facilities as in the case of a Class I Officer of the State Government. R, 6 deals with the medical reimbursement which is as follows:

(3.) The statement filed on behalf of the respondent takes the stand that under R.6 a Member is entitled to the medical reimbursement which will be equivalent to that of a Minister, Speaker, etc. Since the petitioner is a retired Member of the Commission, he is not entitled to get the medical reimbursement. R.10 is applicable only to the matters not mentioned in rules elsewhere and for which provision is there in the rules. It was further stated in the statement that according to R.10, if a retired Judge of the High Court or of Supreme Court is appointed as a member of the Commission, his conditions' of service will be governed by the Rules, notifications, orders and proceedings in force in the absence of relevant provisions in the above Rules. The medical facilities and concessions granted as per Government Order dated 23.10 .1996 read with the Government order dated 11.1.1985 can be availed of only by a retired High Court Judge. He is, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of the above Government Orders,