Retired HC Judge Who Served As Chairman Of Railway Claims Tribunal Is Entitled To Leave Encashment Of Earned Leaves: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court ruled that the retired High Court Judge who served as Chairman of Railway Claims Tribunal is entitled to leave encashment of earned leaves due to him for his tenure as Chairman of Railway Claims Tribunal as per Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
The Court said, however, that the Retired Judge is not entitled to additional pension beyond the statutory limit of ₹4.8L as per Railway Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989.
The Court was hearing a petition where a retired Judge of the Karnataka High Court filed the Petition challenging the orders wherein the respondent Railway Board, GOI rejected the petitioner's request for payment of pension and leave encashment.
The bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum observed, “This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for grant of leave encashment in respect of the earned leave standing to his credit during his tenure as Chairman of the Railway Claims Tribunal. However petitioner is not entitled for an additional pension beyond the statutory limit of Rs.4,80,000/- per annum is liable to be rejected.”
Senior Advocate Sachin B.S. appeared for the Appellant and ASG Shanthi Bhushan appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The Petitioner Justice B. Padmaraj retired as a High Court Judge at the age of 62 and subsequently served as Chairman of the Railway Claims Tribunal until age 65. After his tenure, his request for the cash equivalent of earned leave was denied by the respondents, who also refused additional pension beyond his Rs.40,000/- monthly pension, citing the statutory limit of Rs.4,80,000/- per annum. Leave encashment was also denied, as the petitioner had already used the maximum permissible 300 days upon retirement as a High Court Judge.
The Court perused Rule 8 of 1989 Rules and noted that if a person appointed as Chairman is already drawing a pension, and the combined pension exceeds the ceiling limit of Rs.4,80,000/- per annum, then the individual is not entitled to any additional pension for services rendered as Chairman.
The Court said that the petitioner does not qualify for the pension from the Tribunal as he is already drawing pensions exceeding ₹4.8L per annum and he does not have a right to claim pension beyond this amount.
The Court observed, “Since the petitioner does not have a legal right to claim pension beyond the specified cap, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued in this case. Mandamus is only applicable when there is a failure to perform a legal duty which the petitioner is entitled to enforce.”
The Court said that the petitioner's right to seek the cash equivalent of leave salary for earned leave standing to his credit during his tenure as Chairman cannot be denied based on the previous encashment. According to the Court, the denial of leave encashment is contrary to the provisions of Rule 6(1)(i) of the Rules, 1989 which provides that a person appointed to the Tribunal as Chairman is entitled to earn leave at the rate of 15 days for every completed year of service.
Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the Petition.
Finally, the Court directed the respondents to calculate and disburse the leave encashment amount due to the petitioner for his tenure as Chairman of the Railway Claims Tribunal.
Cause Title: Justice B. Padmaraj (Retired) v. Union of India
