- (1.) These are two cross appeals arising out of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 12th January, 1990 in Civil Writ Petition No. 4838 of 1988 (reported in AIR 1990 Punj and Har 198) lodged by Shri Justice S. S. Sandhawalia, retired Chief Justice of the said High Court and later of the High Court of Patna (Bihar). For the sake of convenience we will hereafter refer to him as the 'original petitioner'. The facts giving rise to these two appeals, the first by the Union Government and the second by the original petitioner, briefly stated, are as under: The original petitioner retired as the Chief Justice of the High Court of Patna on 27th July, 1987. His retiral benefits were released to him but his grievance survived in respect of the following : (i) the full amount of gratuity due to him was not released; (ii) while computing the cash equivalent of leave due to him at the date of his retirement, the cash equivalent of the various allowances drawn by him just before his retirement had not been included; (iii) he was not paid the amount payable to him under S. 22B of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954; and (iv) his claim for reimbursement of medical charges had not been cleared. The High Court notices that during the pendency of the Writ Petition in the High Court, the authorities had substantially satisfied his grievances at (i) and (iv) except for some marginal matters which the High Court had dealt with towards the end of its judgment. The grievances stated at (ii) and (iii) above were, however, contested by the authorities as inadmissible. The precise ease put forth by the original petitioner in regard to his grievance set out at (ii) and (iii) above was that in computing the cash equiva1ent of leave due to him at the date of his retirement the authorities were bound to include the (i) sumptuary allowance of Rs. 500 per month (ii) compensatory allowance of Rs. 900 per month admissible under Art. 222(2) of the Constitution of India, (iii) the City compensatory Allowance of Rs. 75 per month and (iv) the cash equivalent of the perquisites admissible under Ss. 22A and 22B of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, hereinafter called 'the 1954 Act'. It may be advantageous to reproduce the relevant sections at this stage: "22A(l). Every Judge shall be entitled without payment of rent to the use of an official residence in accordance with such rules as may, from time to time, be made in this behalf. 22A(2). Where a Judge does not avail himself of the use of an official residence, he may be paid every month an allowance of two thousand five hundred rupees. 22B. Every Judge shall be entitled to a staff car and one hundred and fifty litres of petrol per month/every month or the actual consumption of petrol whichever is less; 22C. The Chief Justice and each of the other Judges of every High Court shall be entitled to a sumptuary allowance of five hundred rupees per month and three hundred rupees per month respectively." The authorities, however, contend that leave encashment is governed by Rule 20B of the All-India Services (Leave) Rules, 1955, hereafter alluded to as 'the 1955 Rules', read with Rule 2 of the High Court Judges Rules. 1956, hereafter referred to as 'the 1956 Rules', and as such except dearness allowance no other allowance is includible in computing the said benefit of leave salary. We may, therefore, reproduce the said provisions at this stage to correctly appreciate the stand of the authorities. Rule 20B of the 1955 Rules reads thus : "20B. Payment of cash equivalent of leave salary to a member of the service retiring from service on attaining the age of superannuation- 20B(1). The Government shall suo motu sanction to a member of the Service who retires from the service under sub-rule (1) of Rule 16 of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits Rules, 1958), the cash equivalent of leave salary at his credit on the date of his retirement, subject to a maximum of 240 days. Provided that a member of the Service who attained the age of superannuation before the 30th September, 1977 and was on extension of service on or after that date shall be entitled to the cash equivalent of leave salary, on his retirement from service, in respect of the earned leave that was refused to him in public interest and was carried forward to the period of extension plus earned leave due to him during the period of extension reduced by the amount of earned leave availed of during such period, subject to a maximum of 180 days. 20B(2). The cash equivalent of leave salary payable to a member of the Service under sub-rule (1) above shall also include dearness allowance admissible to him on the leave salary at the rates in force on the date of retirement, and it shall be paid in one lump sum, as a one time settlement. 20B(3). The city compensatory allowance and the house rent allowance shall not be included in calculating the cash equivalent of leave salary under this rule. 20B(4). xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 20B(5). xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx Rule 2 of the 1956 Rules next provides as follows : "2. Conditions of service, in certain cases-The Conditions of service of a Judge of a High Court for which no express provision has been made in the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, shall be, and shall from the commencement of the Constitution be deemed to have been, determined by the rules for the time being applicable to a member of the Indian Administrative Service holding the rank of Secretary to the Government of the State in which the principal seat of the High Court is situated: Provided that, in the case of a Judge of the High Court of Delhi (and a Judge of the Punjab and Haryana ) the conditions of service shall be determined by the rules for the time being applicable to a member of the Indian Administrative Service on deputation to the Government of India and holding the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India stationed at New Delhi." The grievance of the original petitioner as set out in (iii) above is that although he was entitled under S. 22B extracted earlier to the facility of a staff car and one hundred and fifty litres of petrol every month or actual monthly consumption of petrol, whichever was less, he was not provided this facility by the State of Bihar during his tenure there as Chief Justice and hence he was entitled to cash equivalent of the conveyance facility denied to him minus the value of 150 litres of petrol which he availed of by the use of another vehicle. He estimated this claim of Rs. 3500 per month on the premise that the neighbouring State of West Bengal was paying at the rate of Rs. 3500 per month to its judges in lieu of the conveyance facility which it was obligated to provide under S. 22B of the 1954 Act. It may here be mentioned that while The State of Bihar failed to file a counter to contest this claim, the Union Government categorically stated that it had not concurred with the arrangement worked out by the State of West Bengal of paying a fixed amount in lieu of providing a staff car as required by the aforesaid provision. The Union of India has, therefore, questioned the claim of the original petitioner under this head.
(2.) The High Court came to the conclusion that all allowances except City Compensatory Allowance and House Rent Allowance were includible in calculating the cash equivalent of leave salary payable to a judge of the High Court under Rule 20B of the 1955 Rules read with Rule 2 of the 1956 Rules. The two allowances, namely, the City Compensatory Allowance and the House Rent Allowance were inadmissible and had to be excluded in terms of sub-rule (3) of Rule 20B which specifically provides for their exclusion. The High Court, therefore, held that (i) sumptuary allowance of Rs. 500 per month, (ii) compensatory allowance of Rs. 900 per month admissible under Art. 222(2), and (iii) conveyance charges at the rate of Rs. 3500 per month were includible in computing the cash equivalent of leave due to the original petitioner at the date of his retirement. The High Court also accepted the claim of the original petitioner for the failure of the State of Bihar in providing a staff car to him as admissible under S. 22B of the 1954 Act at the same rate of Rs. 3500 per month. The marginal claims under (i) and (iv) were finalised by the High Court by ordering grant of interest at 12% per annum on the balance gratuity amount of Rupees 51,000/- which was paid in July 1988 i.e. approximately one year after his retirement. So also the High Court allowed him interest on the difference payable to him on his claims under (ii) and (iii) having been partly allowed. So far as his claim under (iv) is concerned, the State of Punjab, which discharged the liability in respect of medical reimbursement of the original petitioner as a special case, contended that since the latter had settled in Panchkula outside the State of Punjab, though in the vicinity of Chandigarh, it was not liable to reimburse him and would not be bound to do so in future. The High Court repelled this contention. It is not necessary to set out the reasons which weighed with the High Court in repelling the contention of the State of Punjab because the State has not appealed against the said finding of the High Court. As both the Union of India and the original petitioner were dissatisfied with the view taken by the High Court in regard to claims under (ii) and (iii) above, they have preferred these appeals to the extent the High Court has allowed the claim against the former and disallowed a part of the claim of the latter.
(3.) From the foregoing discussion it becomes clear that the Union of India contested the writ petition in the High Court only in regard to the entitlement of the cash equivalent of the allowances including the benefit conferred by S. 22B of the 1954 Act and the cash benefit claimed for failure of the State of Bihar to provide the original petitioner with a staff car. The Union Government had conceded the demand for the grant of rupees one lakh by way of death-cum-retirement gratuity and had paid the balance of Rs. 51,000 to the original petitioner. Since this payment was delayed by a year or so, the original petitioner claimed interest on the balance amount at 12% per annum, which has been rightly allowed by the High Court. Once it is established that an amount legally due to a party was not paid to it, the party responsible for withholding the same must pay interest at a rate considered reasonable by the Court. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the High Court's order directing payment of interest at 12% per annum on the balance of the death-cum-retirement gratuity which was delayed by almost a year. We uphold this part of the High Court's order.;