IMPORTANT POINT
The appellant, retired Chief Justice of Orissa High Court, is entitled to compensation for loss of his salary for the remainder tenure for which he would have held the office of Lokpal which stood curtailed by reason of the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas (Repeal) Act, 1985.

Headnote:Appellant, retired CJ of Orissa High Court on 5-11-1980-Appointed as Lokpal on 17-8-1989 u/s 3 of Orissa Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 1970-His tenure as Lokpal stood curtailed by reason of Lokpal and Lokayuktas (Repeal) Act, 1985-Whether the appellant is entitled to any compensation for loss of salary for the remainder period of his tenure as Lokpal which stood curtailed by reason of the later enactment? (Yes)-Necessary direction issued-High Court s order modified-Appeal allowed accordingly.
       Held : The crux of the matter in this case is the effect of the disqualification of not holding any office after ceasing to hold the office of the Lokpal. He is deprived of all other offices or business interest when he holds the office of the Lokpal and the office, which he holds, is also denied to him by reason of the Repealing Act. (Para 10)
       In a situation of this sort, we think that adequate compensation will be the loss of his salary for the remainder tenure for which he would have held the office of the Lokpal. We, therefore, direct the respondents to work out and pay the difference in salary that the appellant will become entitled to by this order on ceasing to hold the office of the Lokpal and pay the same to him. But this direction will not entitle the appellant to claim any other allowances or perks to be converted into cash. (Para 8)
       A writ petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, sets out the facts and the claims arising thereto. May be in a given case, the reliefs set forth may not clearly set out the reliefs arising out of the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the courts always have the power to mould the reliefs and grant the same. In the result, the appeal is, therefore, allowed and the judgment of the High Court stands partly modified in terms of the aforesaid directions. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. (Paras 11 & 12)

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-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.

4. Thus the sole question that has to be considered in this case is whether the appellant is entitled to any compensation for loss of salary for the remainder period of his tenure as Lokpal which stood curtailed by reason of the later enactment. The appellant was appointed as Lokpal in terms of Section 5 of the Act. The said section provides that every person appointed as the Lokpal shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office but shall not be eligible for reappointment. The proviso to Section 5 enables the Lokpal to resign his office or he may be removed from office in the manner specified in Section 6. Sub-section (3) of Section 5 makes it clear that on ceasing to hold office, the Lokpal shall be ineligible for further employment under the State Government or for any other employment under or office in such local authority, corporation, Government Company or society as is referred to in Clause (k) of Section 2 of the Act. Section 4 of the Act provides that when the Lokpal enters the office, he shall not hold any office of trust or profit and if he is connected with any political party, he should sever his connection with it and he should also sever his connection with the conduct and management of the business if he is carrying on any bu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 63

IMPORTANT POINTThe appellant, retired Chief Justice of Orissa High Court, is entitled to compensation for loss of his salary for the remainder tenure for which he would have held the office of Lokpal which stood curtailed by reason of the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas (Repeal) Act, 1985.

IMPORTANT POINT
The appellant, retired Chief Justice of Orissa High Court, is entitled to compensation for loss of his salary for the remainder tenure for which he would have held the office of Lokpal which stood curtailed by reason of the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas (Repeal) Act, 1985.