Judgment

AHMADI, J. :- These are two cross appeals arising out of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 12th January, 1990 in Civil Writ Petition No. 4838 of 1988 (reported in AIR 1990 Punj & Har 198) lodged by Shri Justice S. S. Sandhawalia, retired Chief Justice of the said High Court and later of the High Court of Patna (Bihar). For the sake of convenience we will hereafter refer to him as the original petitioner. The facts giving rise to these two appeals, the first by the Union Government and the second by the original petitioner, briefly stated, are as under:

The original petitioner retired as the Chief Justice of the High Court of Patna on 27th July, 1987. His retiral benefits were released to him but his grievance survived in respect of the following :

(i) the full amount of gratuity due to him was not released;

(ii) while computing the cash equivalent of leave due to him at the date of his retirement, the cash equivalent of the various allowances drawn by him just before his retirement had not been included;

(iii) he was not paid the amount payable to him under S. 22B of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954; and

(iv) his claim for reimbursement of medical charges had not been cleared.

The High Court notices that during the pendency of the Writ Petition in the High Court, the authorities had substantially satisfied his grievances at (i) and (iv) except for some marginal matters which the High Court had dealt with towards the end of its judgment. The grievances stated at (ii) and (iii) above were, however, contested by the authorities as inadmissible. The precise ease put forth by the original petitioner in regard to his grievance set out at (ii) and (iii) above was that in computing the cash equiva1ent of leave due to him at the date of his retirement the authorities were bound to include the (i) sumptuary allowance of Rs. 500 per month (ii) compensatory allowance of Rs. 900 per month admissible under Art. 222(2) of the Constitution of India, (iii) the City compensatory Allowance of Rs. 75 per month and (iv) the cash equivalent of the perquisites admissible under Ss. 22A and 22B of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, hereinafter called the 1954 Act. It may be advantageous to reproduce the relevant sections at this stage:

"22A(l). Every Judge shall be entitled without payment of rent to the use of an official residence in accordance with such rules as may, from time to time, be made in this behalf.

22A(2). Where a Judge does not avail himself of the use of an official residence, he may be paid every month an allowance of two thousand five hundred rupees.

22B. Every Judge shall be entitled to a staff car and one hundred and fifty litres of petrol per month/every month or the actual consumption of petrol whichever is less;

22C. The Chief Justice and each of the other Judges of every High Court shall be entitled to a sumptuary allowance of five hundred rupees per month and three hundred rupees per month respectively."

The authorities, however, contend that leave encashment is governed by Rule 20B of the All-India Services (Leave) Rules, 1955, hereafter alluded to as the 1955 Rules, read with Rule 2 of the High Court Judges Rules. 1956, hereafter referred to as the 1956 Rules, and as such except dearness allowance no other allowance is includible in computing the said benefit of leave salary. We may, therefore, reproduce the said provisions at this stage to correctly appreciate the stand of the authorities. Rule 20B of the 1955 Rules reads thus :

"20B. Payment of cash equivalent of leave salary to a member of the service retiring from service on attaining the age of superannuation- 20B(1). The Government shall suo motu sanction to a member of the Service who retires from the service under sub-rule (1) of Rule 16 of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits Rules, 1958), the cash equivalent of leave salary at his credit on the date of his