R.K. MAHAJAN Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who retired as a Judge of the High Court, was appointed Chairman of H.P. State Commission for Backward Classes, vide notification dated 2.12.1998 (Annexure-PA) for a period of one year and on expiry of that period of one year, his tenure was extended till further orders, vide notification dated 1.12.1999 (Annexure-PB). The appointment was made under clause 3 of the H.P. State Commission for Backward Classes Order, 1993 (Annexure-PC). Sub-clause (5) of clause 4 of the Order provides that the salaries and allowances, payable to, and the other terms and conditions of service of the Chairperson and Members shall be such as may be determined by the State Government from time to time. The Government then framed rules called 'H.P. State Commission for Backward Classes (Salary, Allowances and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 1995' and notified them, vide notification dated 19.8.1995 (Annexure-PD). Rule 3 of the said Rules, inter alia, provides that where the Chairperson is the retired Judge of High Court, he shall get the salary, which he was last drawing minus the pension, if any, being drawn by him and all other perks, which he earlier have enjoyed as sitting Judge / Chief Justice of the High Court, as the case may be.

(2.) IT appears that after his appointment, the petitioner started drawing salary and other allowances and perks and availing the facilities to which a sitting Judge of a High Court is entitled. When amendment to the 'High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Amendment Act, 1998 came into force, the petitioner started drawing House Rent Allowance at the increased rate of Rs.10,000/-, which was Rs.2,500/- per month prior to such increase. He also availed Leave Travel Concession and claimed Rs.42,838/- on account of the traveling charges. Audit of the accounts of the H.P. Commission for Backward Classes, Shimla was conducted by the Auditors of the Accountant General and several objections were raised. Two of these objections pertained to the drawl of the House Rent Allowance by the petitioner at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from 8.1.1999 from which date the High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Amendment Act, 1998 came into force and the other to the drawl of Leave Travel Concession claim of Rs.42838/-. The Auditors noted in the objections that the amount drawn by the petitioner on account of House Rent Allowance at a rate in excess of Rs.2,500/- was liable to be recovered. The amount was worked out at Rs.80,806/-. Similarly, the Auditors pointed out that the amount of Leave Travel Concession claim, i.e. Rs.42,838/-, was also required to be recovered from the petitioner. Though initially the Government in its reply to the audit objections, prepared in annotated form (Annexure-PK), took the stand that after the amendment of the High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1998, the petitioner was entitled to draw House Rent Allowance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- and was also entitled to Leave Travel Concession in the same way as the sitting Judges of the High Court, yet later on it amended the H.P. State Commission for Backward Classes (Salary, Allowances and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 1995, vide notification dated 10.8.2000 (Annexure-PR), whereby the amount of House Rent Allowance was brought down to the amount equivalent to the amount admissible to Members of All India Service and the Leave Travel Concession for self and family was restricted to the same as admissible to the re-employed pensioners as per Leave Travel Concession Rules. Amendments were also made with respect to other items of facilities and perquisites, which are not relevant for deciding this writ petition and so they are not being noticed herein.

(3.) THE writ petitioner then amended his petition and impleaded respondents No. 6 to 10. Chairman of the H.P. State Commission for Backward Classes was impleaded as respondent No. 10, because by then the writ petitioner had retired. So far as respondents No. 6 to 9 are concerned, some personal allegations were made against them. It was alleged that after the filing of the writ petition, they connived with each other and got issued letter Annexure-PM, dated 26.4.2000, whereby request of the petitioner for grant of House Rent Allowance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- was turned down, letter dated 31.8.2000 (Annexure-PS), whereby the bills for reimbursement of medical claims were returned with the observation that the reimbursement be sought from the High Court of Allahabad from where the writ petitioner retired and letter dated 27.9.2000 (Annexure-PU), whereby another set of bills of medical reimbursement was returned with the same observation.