N L SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, we are called upon to decide whether on the abolition of the Madhya Pradesh administrative Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") the petitioner, who was the vice Chairman of the Tribunal, was entitled to any compensation and, if so, what amount of compensation.

(2.) THE facts briefly are that by order dated 3. 10. 2000 the petitioner was appointed as Vice Chairman of the Tribunal constituted under the Administrative tribunals Act, 1985 (in short, "the Tribunals Act" ). The tenure of appointment of the petitioner was five years from the date of taking charge of the post or till the age of 65 years, whichever was earlier. Pursuant to the order dated 3. 10. 2000, the petitioner assumed charge as Vice Chairman of the Tribunal and started working. On 17. 4. 2003, however, the Central Government issued a notification to abolish the Tribunal with immediate effect on the request of the State Government. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed before this Court by Shri A. K. Shrivastava, who was an Administrative Member of the Tribunal and a Division Bench of this court in its judgment reported in A. K. Shrivastava Vs. Union of India 2002 (3)M. P. H. T. 1 held inter alia that the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Members of the tribunal while entering into a contract of employment under the State had legitimate expectation that they would continue to serve as such till the last date of stipulated period of contract and if the State Government decides to abolish the Tribunal, they cease to function with immediate effect and therefore they are legally entitled to get compensation for their unexpired period of contract. The Division Bench accordingly directed that the details of such compensation shall be worked out by the State Government. The State Government then worked out the compensation equivalent to 25% of the basic salary for the period for which the Chairman, Vice chairman and Members of the Tribunal would have continued had the Tribunal not been abolished, i. e. from 17. 4. 2003 to 9. 10. 2005. Since the petitioner was of the opinion that the compensation determined is much lower than what was due to him, he has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for appropriate reliefs.

(3.) MR. Rohit Arya, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that in Sri Justice S. K. Ray Vs. State of Orissa 2003 AIR SCW 402 Sri Justice s. K. Ray, who was holding the Office of Lokpal claimed compensation on account of the abolition of Office of Lokpal by an Ordinance which was subsequently replaced by the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas (Repeal) Act (in short, "the repealing Act") and the Supreme Court held that although no compensation was payable to Sri Justice S. K. Ray on abolition of the Office of Lokpal for the remaining tenure of the Office of Lokpal, compensation was payable because of the disqualification that Sri Justice S. K. Ray had incurred under Section 5 (3) of the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act (for short, "the Orissa Act" ). Mr. Arya explained that under Section 5 (3) of the Orissa Act, a Lokpal on ceasing to hold office was ineligible for further employment under the State Government or for any employment under or office in any local authority, corporation, Government company or Society as referred to in Clause (k) of Section 2 of the Orissa Act and the Supreme Court held that even on repealing of the Orissa Act by the repealing Act, Sri Justice S. K. Ray had to suffer the disqualification in Section 5 (3) of the Orissa Act and for such disqualification, adequate compensation will be loss of his salary for the remaining tenure for which he would have held the office of Lokpal. He submitted that Section 11 (d) of the Tribunals Act similarly provides that on ceasing to hold the office, the Vice Chairman of a State administrative Tribunal shall not be eligible for any employment either under the government of India or under the Government of a State except for appointment as the Chairman of the State Administrative Tribunal or as the Chairman or Vice chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal or of any other State Administrative tribunal or Joint Administrative Tribunal. He submitted that since the petitioner continued to incur the disqualification as provided under Section 11 (d) of the tribunals Act, he is also entitled to a compensation equivalent to the salary payable to him for the remaining period of his tenure of the Office of Vice Chairman of the Tribunal.