A Judicial Member of the Armed Forces Tribunal is entitled to salary and benefits distinct from prior High Court Judge service; previous entitlements do not affect current claims.

JUDGMENT

The writ petitioner is a former Judge of the High Court of Kerala who demitted the office on superannuation on 02.03.2014. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was appointed as a Judicial Member of Armed Forces Tribunal (Regional Bench) Kochi, on 11.03.2015, by Ext.P1. On completion of his term in the Tribunal, he was relieved on 02.03.2017 as per the prescribed provisions.

2. Armed Forces Tribunal has been constituted under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 . Section 6 of the Act provides for qualification for appointment of Chairperson and other members of the Tribunal. Section 3 of the Act refers to the terms of employment of Judicial member or the administrative member . The service conditions of the Chairperson and members of the Tribunal are governed by the provisions of the Armed Force Tribunal (Salaries, Allowances and Conditions of Services of Chairpersons and Members) Rules 2009, (hereinafter referred as 'AFT Rules, 2009'). Rule 3 of the said Rules deals with the pay and allowances, leave, pension, provident fund, travelling allowance, leave travel concession, accommodation etc, to the Chairperson and members of the Armed Forces Tribunal. The petitioner claims that, by virtue of the above provision, petitioner is entitled for salary and allowances and other perquisites as are available to the sitting Judge of a High Court and as provided in the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act 1954. According to the petitioner, though the respondents are statutorily bound to disburse the retirement benefits for the service rendered by the petitioner as Judicial Member, there was culpable default and the transfer grant payable to him was not disbursed. Though an application was filed claiming encashment of earned leave, gratuity and other retirement benefits for the service rendered in AFT, by Ext.P2, those were rejected. In reply to Ext.P2, the third respondent forwarded Ext.P3(a). By Ext.P3(a) communication, second respondent directed the third respondent, AFT to ascertain the number of days of leave of encashment availed by the petitioner while functioning as a Judge of High Court of Kerala. Later, he received communication dated 26.12.2018 and another communication, which are produced as Exts.P4 and P4(a). He was informed that, he has already availed the benefit of leave encashment for the maximum period of 300 days on retirement as Judge of the High Court of Kerala. According to the petitioner, the decision of the second respondent Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench denying the encashment of earned leave of the petitioner on the ground that he has availed the maximum benefit from the High Court of Kerala is unsustainable and unethical. The service rendered by the petitioner in Armed Forces Tribunal as a Judicial Member cannot be considered as a continuation of his service as a Judge in the High Court of Kerala. The benefit of earned leave availed by the petitioner, when he retired from the service as Judge, High Court of Kerala cannot be clubbed while considering the same benefit entitled to him for the service he rendered as Judicial Member of the Armed Forces Tribunal claiming that, petitioner being a Judicial Member of the Tribunal has a unique status in as much as the members constituting such Tribunal are governed fully by the service conditions applicable to the High Court Judges in terms of High Court Judges, (salaries and other conditions of service) Act 1954. While so, the petitioner received a letter dated 04.12.2018 directing him