JUDGMENT

PATHAK, J.:— This petition for special leave to appeal by the Union of India is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana holding the respondent, a retired Judge, of the High Court, entitled. to the payment of the cash equivalent of leave salary in respect of the period of earned leave I at his credit on the date of his retirement.

2. The respondent, Shri Gurnam Singh, was a member of the Superior Judicial, Service in the State of, Haryana. On Feb. 24. 1972 he was appointed a Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and retired on March 18, 1980 on attaining the age at 62 years. On the date of retirement the respondent had to his credit earned leave which had not been availed of by him. He claimed that be was entitled to receive the cash equivalent of leave salary in respect of the period of unutilised earned leave. He also claimed dearness allowance for the period before retirement. The claim being denied, the respondent applied to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition was allowed by the High Court by its judgment and order dated Sept. 5, 1980 and a direction was issued to the Union of India to pay the amount claimed. During the course of the hearing the Union of India conceded the claim to dearness allowance in view of the order dated July 3, 1980 of the Government that the Judges of the High Court were entitled to draw dearness allowance from Dec. 1, 1979. As to the remaining claim, the High Court held the respondent, entitled to the cash equivalent of the leave salary for the period of unutilised earned leave by giving him the benefit of R. 20-B, All India Services (Leave) Rules, 1955 by virtue of R. 2 of the High Court Judges Rules, 1956. The order of the High Court is assailed before us.

3. In our opinion, the High Court is plainly right. Article 221 of the Constitution provides for the payment of salaries and allowances to a Judge of a High Court Clause (2) of Art. 221 declares :

"(2) Every Judge shall be entitled to such allowances and to such rights in respect of leave of absence and pension as may from time to time be determined by or under law made by Parliament and, until so determined, to such allowances and rights as are specified in the Second Schedule :

...... ...... ...... ......"

The rights in respect of leave of absence to which a Judge is entitled may be determined by or under law made by Parliament. Parliament enacted the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, and Ss. 3 to 13 of that Act classify the kinds of leave admissible to a Judge, and provide for the maintenance of a leave account, the aggregate amount of leave which may be granted, the commutation of leave on half allowance into leave on fall allowance, the grant of leave not due, special disability leave, extraordinary leave, the rate of leave allowances, allowance for joining time, for combining leave with vacation and the consequences of overstaying leave or vacation. It also specifies the authority competent to grant leave. The Union of India says that these several provisions constitute a complete code and exhaustively set forth all the benefits relating to leave to which a Judge of a High Court is entitled, and that it is not permissible to proceed beyond those provisions to discover any further right in favour of a Judge. That submission is inadmissible. Sub-section (1) of S. 24 of the same Act empowers the Central Government to make rules to carry out the purpose of the Act. And clause (a) of sub-section (2) of S. 24 specifically contemplates rules providing for leave of absence of a Judge". In other words, it is open to the Central Government to add to the existing statutory provisions by making rules in relation to leave of absence. Sub-section (2) of S. 24 in fact enables the Central Government to make rules in respect of several other matters, such as the pension payable to a Judge, travelling allowances, use of o