AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The applicant has filed this application for directions to respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 5,92,996/- towards leave encashment and Rs. 1,26,456/- towards travelling allowance with interest @18% per annum.
Shorn of details facts are that the petitioner was a Judicial Officer. He was appointed as Civil Judge (Class-II) in the State of Madhya Pradesh. He retired as District Judge from the State of Madhya Pradesh in the month of January 2017.
It is further alleged that after retirement, the petitioner was appointed by respondents no. 1 to the post of Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (CGIT-LC) Nagpur vide order dated 01st September, 2017. The conditions of the service of the applicant being Presiding Officer of CGIT-LC, were governed by Presiding Officers of the Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal and National Tribunal (Salaries, Allowances and other Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2015 (LCIT Rules).
It is further alleged that in terms of these rules, the petitioner was entitled to leave encashment as well as transfer/travelling allowance on his retirement from Headquarters to Home Town.
According to the applicant, he had earned 130 days of earned leave, out of which, he had availed leave of 74 days and therefore, 54 days leave was in balance and 29 days of half pay leave was also to his credit. The applicant was therefore, entitled to leave encashment of 83 days .
Accordingly, the Under Secretary of respondent no. 1 vide communication dated 14th February, 2022 informed the petitioner of the approval of the Competent Authority for encashment of leave salary for 83 days vide Annexure-C.
It is further alleged that the applicant was entitled to travel allowance from the place of his Headquarters i.e. Nagpur to his Home Town, Gurgaon. The applicant submitted a bill of Rs. 1,26,456/- towards travelling allowance. The respondents did not pass the orders of releasing travelling allowance. Hence, the applicant has filed this Original Application.
During the pendency of the application, the applicant sought amendment in the Original Application. By amendment, he has sought the relief regarding benefits of arrears of pay and pension to the applicant in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of All India Judges Association vs. Union of India & Ors. in Writ Petition No. 643/2015 decided on 04th January, 2024. The applicant has thus sought following reliefs:
"3a] Order and direct the respondent to revise the pay scale of the petitioner, including the pension as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association vide Writ Petition No. 643/2015 decided on 4/1/2024 and pay arrears of pay and pension to the petitioner within a stipulated time period.
3b] Order and direct the respondent to pay the allowances as claimed in the present petition as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association delivered on 4/1/2024 in Writ Petition No. 643/2015 as claimed on various heads to which the petitioner is entitled to within a stipulated time period.
4.Cost be saddled on the respondents.
5.Any other relief deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be granted to the petitioner.
6A] The Supreme Court, vide the judgment dated 4/1/2024, has constituted a CSCD under the auspicious of the High Courts to accept the payments of claims and disposal of allowances as approved by the Supreme Court, including payment of arrears of salary pension to Judicial Officers pensioners and family pensioners and elaborate directions have been issued by the Committee for service conditions of District Judiciary, Composition has also been made by the Supreme Court vide paragraph 83 of the judgment. Thus, considering the above judgment of the Supreme Court as well as the earlier reported judgment in 2024 1 SCC 606 (Union of India Vs. All India Judges Association), the petitioner is entitled for revised pay scale, including revision in pension and other allowances. The Hon'ble High Court of Jabalpur, vide order dated 21/3/2023, has notified in the Official Gazette dated 3/2/2023 the revised pay on 2/6/2016 and accordingly the petitioner is entitled for revision pay from 25/9/2017 to 19/1/2022, which works out to Rs.10,06,800/-, which is tabulated as per Annexure-E in the petition.
6B] As per the orders of the Supreme Court dated 4/1/2024, the petitioner is also entitled to allowances and perks. As per the said judgment, the petitioner is entitled to allowances and perks, which are tabulated as under :
1] The petitioner was holding additional charge of CJIT, Mumbai from April, 2020 to 19/1/2022 and according to the judgment of the Supreme Court, 10% of basic works out to Rs.4,93,020/-.
2] Vehicle allowance = Rs.10,000/- per month X 39Months, which works out to Rs.3,90,000/- + Rs.13,500/- X 35 months = Rs.5,65,500/-.
3] Electricity allowance = Rs.1,500/- X 52 months = Rs.78,000/-.
4] Medical allowance = Rs.3,000/- X 52 months = 1,56,000/-.
5] Residence office helper = Rs.10,000/- X 52months = Rs.5,20,000/-. The Ministry did not provide any Peon at the office-cum- residence of the petitioner.
6] Magazine allowance = Rs.1000/- X 52months = Rs.52,000/-.
7] Rob allowance = Rs.12,000/- X 2 months = Rs.24,000/-.
8] Guest allowance = Rs.7,800/- X 52 months = Rs.4,05,600/-.
9] Transfer grant = As per judgment of the Supreme Court, on the basic salary, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.4,48,200/-, whereas the Ministry has paid Rs.58,696/. The balance payable is Rs.3,89,504/-.”
The respondents have filed reply.
They contend that the Ministry had granted leave encashment of 54 days earned leave and 29 days of half pay leave. However, after scrutiny/verification with office records, it was found that some leaves were missing from the leave account of the petitioner. Therefore, letters were sent to respondent no. 1 to obtain revised sanction of leave for encashment. Accordingly, the Ministry vide letter dated 15th January, 2024 (Annexure-R-1) granted leave encashment for 43 days of earned leave and 14 days of half pay leave to the applicant vide Annexure-R-1.
Accordingly, a bill was prepared and it was submitted for revised sanction for encashment of 43 days of earned leave and 14 days of half pay leave vide Annexure-R-2.
As regards payment of Transfer TA admissible to the applicant is concerned, the respondent no. 2 received a letter from respondent no. 1 dated 17th January, 2024 (Annexure-R-3) vide which, the applicant is not entitled to TA on retirement.
The applicant filed rejoinder.
In rejoinder, the applicant contends that the Ministry vide letter dated 14th February, 2022 categorically admitted that the service book of the applicant is not maintained in respect of his Presiding Officer of CJIT-LC. The leave account is maintained in his personal file and therefore, the Competent Authority had sanctioned the encashment of leave salary of 83 days. This order was correct and there was no occasion for the respondents to issue revised sanction. The applicant is therefore, entitled to 83 days of leave encashment.
No new point is raised in the rejoinder.
The applicant has filed additional affidavit in which he states that the respondents have paid an amount of Rs. 4,07,797/- on 16th March, 2024 towards leave encashment but the applicant is entitled to 83 days of leave encashment and therefore, he is entitled to additional amount of Rs. 1,85,199/- towards leave encashment.
I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had earned leave of 54 days to his credit and 29 days of half pay leave to his credit. Thus, the applicant was entitled to 83 days of earned leave. This figure was admitted by respondent no. 2 (Annexure-C) and leave encashment of 83 days was sanctioned by respondent no. 1. There was no question of asking for revised sanction. However, respondent no. 2 made representation to respondent no. 1 and leave encashment was granted for 43 days of earned leave and 14 days of half pay leave.
He submitted that on what basis the respondents had arrived at this conclusion, has not been brought on record. Initial figure of 54 days of earned leave and 29 days of half pay leave was granted and therefore, the applicant ought to have been granted leave encashment for 54 days of earned leave and 29 days of half pay leave.
So far as travelling allowance is concerned, the applicant is entitled to travelling allowance as per Rule 13 of LCIT rules.
He further submitted that the applicant was a Judicial Officer. Post retirement, he joined as Judge, Family Court from where he was appointed as Presiding Officer, CGIT-LC. Therefore, the revision in pension and allowances as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of All India Judges Association (supra) have to be granted, as the applicant is entitled to these allowances. He has placed on record the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of All India Judges Association (supra).
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant has been paid leave encashment for 43 days towards earned leave and 14 days of half pay leave. The applicant has not submitted any evidence to show that the leave to his credit was 54 days towards earned leave and 29 days towards half pay leave. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to 83 days of leave encashment.
So far as transfer allowance is concerned, the applicant is not entitled to transfer allowance as, he did not claim transfer allowance within 6 months from the date of his retirement as Judicial Officer. In terms of letter dated 17th January, 2024 of respondent no. 1, the applicant is not entitled to transfer allowance. He has therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application.
I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties.
Admittedly, the applicant retired as District Judge from Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services. He was appointed as Judge, Family Court, on his retirement as District Judge. Thereafter, he came to be appointed as Presiding Officer, CGIT-LC.
It is not in dispute that the terms and conditions of the applicant being the Presiding Officer of CGIT-LC are governed by LCIT Rules. Rule 13 of LCIT Rules authorizes the applicant to claim transfer-travelling allowance. This Rule reads thus:
“13.Transfer Travelling Allowance.-(1) The transfer travelling allowance shall be as admissible to a Government Servant of the highest grade from home town to headquarters for joining the National Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court and from headquarters to home town at the end of the assignment.
(2)For the presiding officers of the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, the transfer travelling allowance shall be as per Central Government rules as applicable to re-employed person in respect of presiding officers appointed on re-employed basis.”
In terms of this rule, the Presiding Officer is entitled to transfer travelling allowance of the highest grade from Home Town to Headquarters from joining the National Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court and from Headquarters to Home Town at the end of the assignment. Sub-rule 2 states that for the Presiding Officers of the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, the transfer travelling allowance shall be as per Central Government rules, as applicable to re-employed person in respect of presiding officers appointed on re-employment basis.
The applicant is governed by sub-rule 2 of Rule 13. The respondents rejected the claim of the applicant vide letter dated 17th January, 2024 (Annexure-3), which reads thus: “ No. A-19011/02/2017-CLS-II(E) Government of India Ministry of Labour and Employment
Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg New Delhi, Dated 17th January, 2024
To Secretary to the Court CGIT-cum-LC, Nagpur
Subject: Payment of Transfer TA to Sh. Shyam Sunder Garg, Ex-PO, CGIT, Nagpur - reg.
Sir,
With reference to your letter on the above-mentioned subject, it is stated that the matter regarding payment of Transfer TA to Sh. Shyam Sunder Garg, Ex-PO, CGIT, Nagpur on completion of his tenure has been deliberated upon in the Ministry.
2.Guidelines regarding payment of transfer travelling allowance to re-employed person on the date of completion of tenure as contained in D/o Expenditure's OM No. 19030/6/2010-E.IV dated 10.02.2012 is given below:-
'2.(iii)- Unless provided for in the terms & conditions of the post where the pensioner is re-employed, if 'TA on Retirement' has already been claimed by the re-employed pensioner from the office/organization from where he has retired/superannuated, no additional TA would be admissible on expiry of the term of his re-employment. If the re-employed pensioner has not claimed 'TA on Retirement' within six months of his retirement and he is re-employed under the Central Govt. before the expiry of six months from his date of superannuation/retirement, he can claim 'TA on retirement' after expiry of the term of his re-employment, with reference to the post held at the time of retirement and pay last drawn at the time of retirement, in terms of Gol Order No. 2, below SR 147. In such an event, the 'TA on retirement' would be reimbursed by the office/organization from where the re-employed pensioner had retired/superannuated.'
3.In view of the above and Rule 13(2) of the Presiding Officers of the Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal and National Tribunal (Salaries, Allowances and other Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2015, transfer TA is not admissible to Sh. Garg on completion of his tenure as PO, CGIT, Nagpur as he joined the Tribunal on 25.09.2017 after the expiry of six months from the date of his retirement on 31.01.2017 in the parent cadre.
Yours faithfully,
(Dhananjay Sharma) Under Secretary to the Government of India
Copy to: Sh. Shyam Sunder Garg, Ex-PO, CGIT-cum-LC, Nagpur (Email - [email protected])"
Clause 2 (iii) does not apply to the applicant, as the present situation is not covered by this OM.
Applicant is not covered by the said OM. This OM states that the re-employed pensioner is not entitled to the TA if he has not claimed it from the organization/institute he has retired within 6 months, and has joined the Central Government within 6 months of his superannuation/retirement. In the case at hand, the applicant retired on 01st January, 2017. He was re-employed as Judge, Family Court. Therefore, his services were continued in the State Government. Thereafter, he joined the CGIT on 01st September, 2017. In this manner, the applicant has joined the CGIT within 6 months of his retirement/resignation from the State Government. Thus, the applicant is not covered by this OM. Therefore, rejection of his claim was improper.
In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to travelling allowance.
So far as claim of 54 days of earned leave and 29 days of half pay for leave encashment is concerned, it is true that initially the respondent no. 1 had granted leave encashment for 83 days. However, on making correspondence by respondent no. 2, it was reduced to 43 days towards earned leave and 14 days towards half pay leave. Nothing has been placed on record by the applicant that earned leave of 54 days and half pay leave of 29 days was to his credit. Just because the respondent no. 1 initially admitted the same to be of 54 days and 29 days respectively, does not lead to the conclusion that he was entitled to 83 days of leave encashment.
Learned counsel for the applicant also conceded that there is nothing on record to show that earned leave of 54 days and half pay leave of 29 days was to the credit of the applicant. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to that effect, the leave encashment of the period claimed by the applicant cannot be granted.
The applicant is claiming the benefit of the allowances granted by the Supreme Court in the matter of All India Judges Association (supra). Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that the applicant was a Judicial Officer and Presiding Officer is also a limb of Judiciary and therefore, all the benefits granted by the Supreme Court ought to have been granted by the respondents. He has prayed for these allowances in para 3a, 3b, 6a & 6b.
Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions tooth and nail. He submitted that the applicant is not entitled to these allowances as he did not make any representation to the respondents and directly sought amendment. He submitted that the applicant does not remain a member of the Judiciary, the moment he retired on superannuation. Therefore, the judgment is applicable only to the serving Judges. He submitted that if revision in pension is to be sought, it has to be claimed from the State Government from where he has retired on superannuation.
I find substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents.
In the matter of R.K. Yadav & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors. 2026 SCC Online SC 1543, this very issue of had come up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of R.K. Yadav (supra), the facts were that the petitioner R.K. Yadav was appointed as Presiding Officer of CGIT-LC at New Delhi. The Tribunal which he presided over was the Indian Court/Tribunal within the meaning of Article 247 r/w Article 323 of the Constitution. It was contended that the Government of India accepted the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission for the Officers of other Tribunals such as Central Administrative Tribunal and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Government treated the CGIT-cum-LC at par with the Court of District Judge constituted by the State Government.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 6.7 that:
"6.7The re-employed officers/persons after the retirement, when re-employed again, stand belong to a separate class. Their claim to avail the 6th Pay Commission pay scales has no basis to assert on the footing of Fundamental Rights or on any other grounds. Grouping them separately with those regularly working and equating them with District Judiciary cannot be said to offend either the tenets of Article 14 or the requisites of Article 16 of the Constitution.”
From this decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that on retirement, the re-employed Officers belong to a separate class. It is for the Government to take a decision whether the benefits awarded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges Association are to be extended to the Presiding Officers of CGIT-LC, since they belong to a different class. The judgment in the case of All India Judges Association (supra) applies only to the serving/retired Judicial Officers. It is for the Central Government to take a call, whether to make judgment in the case of All India Judges Association applicable to Presiding Officer of CGIT-LC. It is settled principle of law that whether to grant the extension of the benefits of Pay Commission, is within the exclusive domain of the Government. On retirement from Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service, he ceases to be a member of that service. Therefore, if he is seeking the revision of pension, then he should apply proper forum from where he has superannuated and not the Central Government. This Tribunal cannot direct the Central Government to extend the benefits of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment to re-employed class, who is a separate class from the Judiciary.
In this view of the matter, the applicant is not entitled to this relief.
In view of the above, the applicant is entitled to the relief of travelling allowance. Hence, the application is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to pay travelling allowance to the applicant to the tune of Rs. 1,26,456/- within a period of 3 months with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application till the entire amount is paid to the applicant.
The claim as regards leave encashment and the benefits arising from All India Judges Association (supra) judgment, stand rejected.
Accordingly, TA is partly allowed. Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of. No costs.