DEOKI NANDAN AGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition Sri Deoki Nandan Agarwal, a retired Judge of this Court, has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India to issue necessary orders to the State of U.P., High Court, Allahabad and Accountant General III, U.P. Allahabad for paying cash equivalent of un-utilised earned leave due to him on the date of his retirement and standing to his credit in his leave account for the full period of 360 days in terms of leave on half allowance or for 180 days in terms of leave on full allowance, under R.20-B of All India Services (Leave) Rules, 1956. He has further claimed relief for a direction to the Accountant General III to issue necessary pay/leave salary slip to him.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Judge of the Allahabad High Court on 17-11-1977 and on attaining the age of 62 years, he retired on 4-10-1983 after putting in actual service of 5 years and 9 months.

(3.) In the case of Union of India v. Gurnam Singh, AIR 1982 SC 1265 it was held that a retired Judge of the High Court is entitled to the payment of the cash equivalent of leave salary in respect to the period of earned leave at his credit on the date of his retirement in accordance with the provisions of R.20-B of the All India Services (Leave) Rules, 1955 read with R.2 of the High Court Judges Rules, 1956. The Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs accordingly issued an order dt. 18th Feb. 1983 addressed to the Chief Secretaries of State Governments, Registrars of all High Courts, Registrar of Supreme Court, New Delhi etc. for payment of cash equivalent of un-utilised earned leave standing to the credit of retired Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, at the time of their retirement. By this order the Government of India also laid down the criterion for calculating such cash equivalent. Thereafter the Accountant General, Allahabad issued a pay slip entitling the petitioner to receive cash equivalent of leave salary for the period of one month and eleven days at the rate of Rs. 3500/- + Rs. 1800/- (DA) = 5300/- per month. As the petitioner claimed that the respondents did not permit him to encash leave for the full period for which he was entitled, he addressed a notice dt. 21st Jan. 1984 to respondent 1 mentioning therein that the period of leave which could be encashed by him on full allowance under R.20-B, if due, was 180 days. He had been allowed to encash 42 days leave. He was, therefore, entitled to encash leave for a further period of 138 days. Doubling the said period of 138 days for purposes of leave on half allowance (the basis on which petitioners leave account had been maintained) he became entitled to encash leave for a further period of 276 days (9 months and 6 days) at the rate of Rs. 1110/- + Rs. 1800/- (DA) = 2910/- per month and urged the respondent to arrange to pay him a further sum of Rs. 26772/-. The claim made by the petitioner was turned down by respondent 1 vide communication dt. 27-3-85 which ran thus :-