In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has partially allowed a writ petition filed by a retired judge, granting him the right to leave encashment for his tenure as Chairman of the Railway Claims Tribunal while rejecting his claim for additional pension. The judgment, delivered on June 18, 2024, by Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, addresses crucial issues regarding pension and leave encashment for retired judges serving in tribunals.
The case, WRIT PETITION NO. 13125 OF 2012 (S-RES), was filed by Justice B. Padmaraj (Retired), a former judge of the Karnataka High Court, against the Union of India and the Railway Board. The petitioner was represented by advocate Sri. Sachin B.S., while Sri. Shanthi Bhushan, Additional Solicitor General, appeared for the respondents.
Background:
Justice Padmaraj retired from the Karnataka High Court at the age of 62 on October 5, 2006. He was subsequently appointed as the Chairman of the Railway Claims Tribunal, where he served until reaching 65 years of age on October 5, 2009. Upon completing his tenure as Chairman, he sought cash equivalent for earned leave and additional pension, both of which were denied by the respondents.
Legal Issues:
The case primarily revolved around two key issues:
1. Eligibility for leave encashment for the period served as Chairman of the Railway Claims Tribunal.
2. Entitlement to additional pension beyond the statutory limit of Rs. 4,80,000/- per annum.
Court’s Decision:
1. Leave Encashment:
The court ruled in favor of the petitioner on this issue. Justice Magadum observed, “The denial of leave encashment is contrary to the provisions of Rule 6(1)(i) of the Rules, 1989.” The court held that the petitioner’s right to seek cash equivalent of leave salary for earned leave during his tenure as Chairman cannot be denied based on previous encashment received upon retirement as a High Court Judge.
2. Additional Pension:
The court rejected the petitioner’s claim for additional pension beyond the statutory limit. Justice Magadum stated, “Rule 8(2) of Rules, 1989, clearly stipulates 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.”
Important Observations:
The court made several noteworthy observations:
1. On leave encashment: “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.”
2. On pension limit: “Given the specific rule capping the total pension at Rs. 4,80,000/-, the petitioner does not have a legal right to claim any pension amount beyond this limit.”
3. On the application of rules: “The rules governing pension entitlements must be adhered to, and the petitioner’s current pension exceeds the permissible limit under these rules.”
Also Read
The court’s order directs the respondents to calculate and disburse the leave encashment amount due to the petitioner for his tenure as Chairman of the Railway Claims Tribunal. However, it dismisses the claim for additional pension beyond the statutory limit.
