Rajendra Babu, J. - (1.) The appellant was Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court and retired on 5-11-1980. He was appointed as Lokpal on 17-8-1989 under Section 3 of the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Prior to his appointment as Lokpal, he had also functioned as the Chairman of the Commission of Enquiry into certain disputes involving the States of Tamil Nadu, Kerala and some of their Ministers. Pursuant to the repeal of the Act by the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas (Repeal) Ordinance, 1992, which came into effect on 16-7-1992, he ceased to hold the office of Lokpal. The said Ordinance was subsequently replaced by the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas (Repeal) Act, 1995.
(2.) The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court contending that he had incurred certain liabilities in ceasing to hold the office being ineligible for further employment under the State Government or for any other employment under an office in any such local authority, Corporation, Government Company or Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which is subject to the control of the State Government and which is notified by the Government in that behalf. He claimed for- i) Compensation for loss of salary for the remainder period of his tenure as Lokpal, ii) pension with effect from 16-7-1992 as per Rule 7 of the Orissa Lokpal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1984, iii) refund of the amount of pension deducted from his salary during the period 17-8-1989 to 16-7-1992, and iv) payment of encashment value of unutilised leave which accrued to him during the period 17-8-1989 to 16-7-1992. Of the four claims made by the appellant, the High Court held that the appellant was not entitled to compensation for loss of salary for the remainder period of his tenure as Lokpal as well as for payment of pension with effect from 16-7-1992. However, insofar as the encashment of value of unutilised leave and the deduction of amount of pension during the period from 17-8-1989 to 16-7-1992 were concerned, appropriate reliefs were given. In this appeal, the said order is in challenge.
(3.) Shri Raj Kumar Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the view taken by the High Court insofar as refund of the amount of pension deducted from the salary of the appellant for the period from 17-8-1989 to 16-7-1992 as well as payment of encashment of value of unutilised leave accrued to him during the said period is in order and that part of the order is not in challenge. The State also has not filed any appeal in respect of that part of the order.;