Past service in different capacities cannot be combined for gratuity claims under the High Court Judges Act, as continuity of service is not established by gaps between different roles.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"(a) call for the relevant records of the respondents;

(b) quash the order F.No.2/4/2008-JA dated 19.1.2012 (Annexure-P impugned), order dated 21.3.2012 (Annexure-P-1 impugned) and order dated 16.4.2012 (Annexure-P-2 impugned) issued by the respondents herein to the extent and has allowed payment of lesser amount of gratuity;

(c) issue an appropriate writ/direction to the respondents to treat the claim of the petitioner for treating service rendered by him in I.A.S. and further with CAT as single spell for the purpose of gratuity in view of the judgement of this Hon'ble Court in "Devender Kumar Agarwal" (supra);

(d) direct the respondents to pay the balance amount of gratuity amounting to Rs.5,30,533 (Rs.10,00,000 minus Rs.3,50,000 minus Rs.1,19,467 = Rs.5,30,533) to the petitioner along with interest thereon @ 18% per annum from the date the same became due till the date of actual payment.

(e) Direct the respondents to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the payment of Rs.1,19,467/- from the date the same became due till actual payment thereof;

(f) award cost of the present petition in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents..."

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had joined the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) in 1967 and retired therefrom on 30th June, 2003 on attaining the age of superannuation.

3. After retirement from the service as Civil Servant (IAS), the petitioner was re-employed by Government of India as Member Secretary of the Twelfth Finance Commission with effect from 1st July, 2003 to 31st December, 2004 and thereafter, by the Government of Uttaranchal (Now Uttarakhand) as Chairman of the Second State Finance Commission from 2nd May, 2005. Subsequently, the petitioner joined the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CAT') as Vice-Chairman of the Jabalpur Bench on 23rd March, 2006, wherefrom he retired on 30th June, 2008 on attaining the age of 65 years. Vide their sanction order no. 19/2009 dated 30th April, 2009, the respondents paid amount of leave encashment to the petitioner as admissible under the Rules. In May, 2009, the petitioner was informed by the respondent no. 2 vide letter dated 26th May, 2009 addressed to the respondent no. 3 that "in view of the Sub-Section 3 of Section 17A of the High Court Judges Act, 1954, (hereinafter "The Act, 1954") the gratuity to the petitioner is not admissible".

4. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent no. 2 on 29th July, 2009 drawing its attention to the circular/letter bearing no. L-11016/2/2009-June of the Ministry of Law and Justice (Department of Justice). However, the said representation was rejected by the respondent no. 2.

5. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted another representation on 2nd October, 2009 clarifying the statutory and legal position qua the valid claim of the petitioner. Vide letter dated 2nd March, 2010, the said representation of the petitioner was again rejected by the respondents. The petitioner made another effort and again made a representation in October, 2009. The same was also rejected by the respondent no. 2 vide letter dated 19th January, 2012. Aggrieved by the aforementioned impugned orders, the instant petition has been filed.

SUBMISSIONS

(on behalf of the Petitioner)

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of