http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil) 203  of  2000

PETITIONER: V.S. MALLIMATH.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA  & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       21/03/2001

BENCH: G.B. Pattanaik, S.N. Phukan & B.N. Agarwal.

JUDGMENT:

L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

PATTANAIK,J.

   This  petition under Article 32 is by the retired  Chief Justice  of  High  Court of Kerala.  The  grievance  of  the petitioner  is that he has been illegally denied of  certain monetary  benefit when he served as a Member of the National Human  Rights Commission.  It is the case of the  petitioner that  after retiring as the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court  on  11th June, 1991, he was appointed as Chairman  of the  Central  Administrative Tribunal on 5.12.1991.  On  his retirement from the Tribunal he was appointed as a Member of the   National  Human  Rights   Commission  on  14.9.94  and continued there till he attained the age of 70 years.  While he  was continuing as a Member of the National Human  Rights Commission  he  was  not granted full salary, which  he  was entitled  to under the relevant Rules, and on the other hand deductions  were  made  under the Proviso to Rule 3  of  the Rules.   The  contention of the petitioner is that the  said Proviso  will have no application.  The further grievance of the petitioner is that on his retirement from the Commission he  was  entitled  to retiral benefit of  gratuity  for  the period he rendered service as a Member of the National Human Rights  Commission,.   but even that was  illegally  denied. The  third  grievance  of the petitioner is that  the  leave which  he earned as a Member of the Human Rights  Commission was   not   allowed  to  be   encashed   on   an   erroneous interpretation  of  the Rules and thereby he  was  illegally denied of his rights.  The Union of India in the Ministry of Home  Affairs  rejected all the claims of the petitioner  on the  ground that the relevant Rules do not permit the claims of the petitioner.

   The   National   Human  Rights   Commission   has   been constituted  under  the  Protection  of  the  Human   Rights Commission  Act,  1993(for short the Act).  Under  Section 3(2)  of the said Act, the Chairperson would be one who  has been a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and a Member could

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

be appointed who is or has been a Judge of the Supreme Court and  another Member to be appointed is, who is or has  been, the  Chief  Justice  of the High Court.   Apart  from  these three,  two Members are to be appointed from amongst persons having  knowledge  of, or practical experience  in,  matters relating to human rights.  The term of office of a Member is 5  years from the date on which he assumes charge of office. But  no  one can be retained after attaining the age  of  70 years.   Section 8 of the Act provides that the salaries and allowances  payable  to, and other terms and  conditions  of service  of Members shall be such as may be prescribed.  The expression prescribed has been defined in Section 2 (l) to mean  prescribed  by rules made under this Act.  Section  40 confers  power  on the Central Government to make  rules  by notification  to  carry  out  the  provisions  of  the  Act. Section  41  confers power on the State Government  to  make Rules  by  notification to carry out the provisions  of  the Act.  In exercise of power conferred under Section 40 of the Act the Central Government has framed the Rules, called, The National  Human  Rights Commission Chairperson  and  Members (Salaries,  Allowances  and  other  Conditions  of  Service) Rules,  1993, (hereinafter referred to as The Conditions of Service Rules).  Rule 3 provides that there shall be paid to a  Member, a salary which is equal to the salary of a  Judge of  the  Supreme  Court.   Proviso to  the  said  Provision, however,  stipulates that the said Member, if is in  receipt of  the  pension other than disability or wound pension,  in respect  of any previous service under the Government of the Union  or  the  Government of a State, then  his  salary  in respect of a service as a Member shall be reduced.  The bone of  contention  of  the petitioner is that  the  pension  he receives  as  a Retired Chief Justice of Kerala  High  Court cannot  be  deducted  from  his salary as a  Member  of  the National  Human Rights Commission under the Proviso to  Rule 3(b),  inasmuch as the services of the Chief Justice  cannot be held to be a service under the Government of the Union or the  Government of a State.  Thus, Rule 3(b) is required  to be  interpreted  by this Court.  The aforesaid Rule 3(b)  is extracted herein below in extenso:-

   3(b)  - a Member, a salary which is equal to the  salary of a Judge of the Supreme Court:

   Provided that if the Chairperson or a Member at the time of  his appointment was in receipt of, or being eligible  so to do, had elected to draw, a pension (other than disability or  wound pension) in respect of any previous service  under the  Government  of the Union or Government of a State,  his salary in respect of service as a Chairperson or as the case may be a Member shall be reduced:

   (i) by the amount of that pension;

   (ii)  if  he had, before assuming office,  received,  in lieu  of a portion of pension due to him in respect of  such previous  service, the commuted value thereof by the  amount of that portion of the pension;  and

   (iii)  by  any other form of retirement benefits,  being drawn or availed of or to be drawn or availed of by him.

   Rule  4  deals with the leave and Rule 4(2)  deals  with encashment  of  leave  salary  in respect  of  earned  leave standing to the credit of the Member.  The contention of the petitioner is that the expression maximum of leave encashed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

under  this  sub-rule  or  at the time  of  retirement  from previous service, as the case may be or taken together shall not  in  any  case  exceed 240 days  would  mean  his  just immediate  previous service, and in his case it would be his service  as  the  Chairman  of  the  Central  Administrative Tribunal and would not bring within its sweep the encashment of  leave  which he has made as the Chief Justice of  Kerala High  Court.  Thus Rule 4(2) crops up for interpretation  of this  Court.   Said  Rules 4(1) and 4(2) of  the  Rules  are extracted herein below in extenso :-

   4(1)   A person, on appointment as Chairperson or as a Member  shall be entitled to leave as follows :

   (i)  earned  leave  @ fifteen days for  every  completed calendar year of service or a part thereof;

   (ii) half pay leave on medical certificate or on private affairs  @ twenty days in respect of each completed year  of service  and  the leave salary for half pay leave  shall  be equivalent to half of the leave salary admissible during the earned leave;

   (iii)  leave  on  half pay can be commuted to  full  pay leave  at the discretion of Chairperson or a Member if it is taken  on  medical  ground  and is supported  by  a  medical certificate from the competent medical authority;

   (iv) extraordinary leave without pay and allowances upto a maximum of one hundred eighty days in one term of office.

   (2)  On the expiry of his term of office in the National Human  Rights Commission, the Chairperson and Members  shall be  entitled  to receive cash equivalent of leave salary  in respect  of  earned leave standing to his credit subject  to the  condition that the maximum of leave encashed under this sub-rule  ior  at  the  time  of  retirement  from  previous service,  as the case may be or taken together shall not  in any case exceed 240 days.

   Aforesaid  Rule  4(2) has been amended  by  Notification dated  28th July, 1999, and in place of the words 240 days substitution has been made to the effect the maximum period prescribed  for encashment of such leave under the All India Service  (Leave)  Rules  1955.  Though  the  conditions  of Service  Rules has no provision for payment of gratuity, but under  Rule 10, the conditions of service of the Chairperson and  Members  for which no express provision is made in  the Rules  has to be determined by Rules and Orders for the time being applicable to the Secretary to the Government of India belonging  to  the Indian Administrative Services.   By  the aforesaid   provision  the   All  India   Services-death-cum retirement  benefit Rules, 1958 applies also to the  Members of  the Commission in respect of matters for which there  is no  provision in the Conditions of Service Rules.  Under the All  India  Service Rules, though it has been  provided  for payment  of  gratuity for the services rendered, but it  has also  been  stated  that  no gratuity would  be  payable  on re-employment,  as  provided  under Central  Civil  Services (Fixation  of  Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Orders,  1986. The  stand  of the petitioner is that the appointment  as  a Member  in  the National Human Rights Commission  cannot  be termed  as  re-  employment,  and  therefore,  he  would  be entitled  to the gratuity for the period of service rendered by  him as a Member, Human Rights Commission.  Thus Rule  10

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

and  the relevant provision of All India Service  Death-cum- Retirement benefit Rules, 1958, as well as the Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986, crop up for interpretation.  The relevant Provision of the  said  Death-cum Retirement Benefit Rules  is  extracted below:-

   Rule  17(1)  Retiring Pension and Gratuity- A  retiring pension  and death-cum-retirement gratuity shall be  granted to  a  member of the Service who retires or is  required  to retire under rule 16.

   Rule  18.  Amount of Gratuity or Pension.- (a) In case a member  of  the Service retires from service  in  accordance with  the  provisions  of  these  rules,  before  completing qualifying   service  of  ten   years,  gratuity  shall   be admissible at the rate of half months pay of each completed six monthly periods of qualifying service.

   (b)(i)  In  case  a member of the service  retires  from service  in  accordance with the provisions of these  rules, after completing qualifying service of thirty-three years or more,  pension  shall  be admissible to him at the  rate  of fifty  per  cent  of the average emoluments  reckonable  for pension.   (ii)In case a member of the Service retires  from service  in  accordance with the provisions of  these  rules after  completing  10 years of qualifying service  but  less than 33 years of qualifying service, the pension admissible, to  him  shall  be such proportion of  the  maximum  pension admissible  under  clause  (a)  of   this  sub-rule  as  the qualifying  service rendered by him bears to the  qualifying service  of 33 years.  (2)An Indian Civil Service member  of the  Indian  Administrative  Service shall  be  entitled  to receive  an annuity of Rs.13,333,33 :  Provided that if  any such  member  for the death-cum-retirement gratuity  scheme, his  annuity  shall be reduced by the annuity equivalent  of the amount of gratuity:

   Provided that the amount of invalid pension shall not be less  than  the  amount of family pension  admissible  under sub-rule (2) of rule 22B.

   [Note:   A  member of the Service retired  from  service before  1st  day  of January, 1986, shall  be  granted  such additional  relief  in pension as may be sanctioned  by  the Central Government.]

   Rule  14 of the Central Civil Services (Fixation of  Pay of  Re-  employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986 is quoted  herein below:

   14.   Gratuity/Death/Retirement  Gratuity   Re-employed officers     shall    not    be     eligible     for     any gratuity/death/retirement   gratuity  for   the  period   of re-employment  except in those cases covered in Rules 18 and 19  of the Central Civil Services(Pension) Rules, 1972,  and corresponding rules of the Defence Services Regulations.

   Mr.   T.V.L.  Iyer, learned senior counsel appearing for the  petitioner contends that the post of Chief Justice of a High Court is a constitutional post and, therefore, services rendered as the Chief Justice of a High Court cannot be held to be a service under the Government.  Since Proviso to Rule 3(b)  of  the  Conditions of Service Rules  stipulates  that pension  received  by  a Member in respect of  any  previous

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

service  under  the Government of Union or Government  of  a State  could be deducted from the salary, the pension  which the  petitioner was receiving as Chief Justice will not come within  the  sweep  of  the  Proviso  to  Rule  3  (b)  and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to receive the salary equal  to the salary of a Judge of the Supreme Court and  no deduction could be made.  The stand of the Union Government, on  the  other  hand is, that the word Government  in  the proviso  to Rule 3 (b) should not be interpreted narrowly to mean,  the Executive Government but should be interpreted in a  broader  sense to include the three organs of the  State, namely, the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary and such  an interpretation being given the pension received  by the  petitioner as Chief Justice of Kerala High Court has to be  deducted  from the salary receivable as a Member of  the Commission  in terms of the Proviso to Rule 3(b).  Mr.  Iyer appearing  for  the petitioner relied upon the  decision  of this  Court  in  Union  of India  and  Ors.   vs.   Pratibha Banerjee  and  Anr.   - (1995) 6 Supreme Court  Cases,  765, where  this Court has held that the Judge of a High Court is a  holder  of  constitutional office and  not  a  Government servant.   In the aforesaid case one Pratibha Banerjee,  who retired as a Judge of a Calcutta High Court with effect from 16.2.1989  was  appointed as a Vice-Chairman of the  Central Administrative  Tribunal  on 3.3.1989 and relinquished  said post  on  16.2.1992, the question for consideration was  for the  aforesaid period from 3.3.89 till 16.2.92 what would be her pension.  While she had claimed that she was entitled to pension admissible under Part I of the First Schedule to the Act,  it  was  the contention of the Union  Government  that pension  would  be  admissible under Part III of  the  First Schedule to the Act.  The salary and allowances of the Vice- Chairman  and Member of the Central Administrative  Tribunal is  determined  under  a  set   of  Rules,  called,  Central Administrative   Tribunal  (Salaries   and  allowances   and conditions  of  Service  of   Chairman,  Vice-Chairman   and Members)   Rules,  1985.   Rule   15(A)  provides  that  the conditions of service and other perquisites available to the Chairman,   Vice-Chairman  of   the  Central  Administrative Tribunal  shall be the same as admissible to a serving Judge of  the  High  Court as contained in the High  Court  Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, and the High Court Judges (Travelling  Allowances) Rules, 1956.  Under the High  Court Judges  Conditions  of Service Act, 1954 a Judge of  a  High Court  is  entitled to pension under Chapter III of the  Act and  Section  14 provides that every Judge on retirement  be paid  a pension in accordance with the scale and  provisions in  Part I of the First Schedule provided he is not a member of  a  ICS or has not held any other pensionable post  under the  Union or the State.  Section 15, however, provides that a  Judge  who is not a Member of ICS but has held any  other pensionable  civil post under the Union or the State, shall, on retirement be paid a pension in accordance with the scale and  provisions  in  Part  III of the  First  Schedule.   On interpretation  of the aforesaid provisions this Court  held that  the provisions of Part III would apply to a Judge  who has  held any pensionable post under the Union or State  but is  not  a Member of ICS and who has not elected to  receive the  pension payable under Part I.  Pratibha Banerjee having been  appointed as a Judge of a High Court from the Bar,  on her  retirement she became entitled to pension under Part  I of  the  First  Schedule.  When she was  appointed  as  Vice Chairman  of Central Administrative Tribunal she was already drawing  pension as Judge of the High Court under Part I  of the  First  Schedule.   The question for  consideration  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

whether  for  the services rendered as Vice Chairman of  the Tribunal she would get pension under Part I or Part III.  It was  the  contention of the Union Government that since  she was  holding a pensionable post under the Union/State at the time  when she retired as Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal  her case  would  be  governed  by Part  III.   This  contention, however,  was rejected by this Court and the Court held that it  cannot  be said that a Judge of the High Court  holds  a post  under the Union or the State.  The Court then went  on examining  the  scheme  of  the  Constitution  and  how  the Constitution  makers were keen to ensure that the  Judiciary was  independent  of  the   Executive  and  an  independent, impartial  and  fearless  Judiciary  is  our  constitutional creed.   The Court also took note of Articles 233 to 237 and pointed  out  how  even the subordinate judiciary  has  been insulated  from any executive influence and ultimately  came to  the  conclusion that there is no relationship of  master and  servant  between the Government and the Judges  of  the High Court, and consequently, it cannot be said that a Judge of  the  High  Court  holds a post  under  the  Union/State. Though certain broad observations made in the aforesaid case might  support  the contention of Mr.  Iyer, but we find  it difficult  to  accept the contention of Mr.  Iyer  that  the pension  received by a Judge of the High Court shall not  be taken into account for determining his salary as a Member of the  Human  Rights Commission as the services of a Judge  of the  High  Court by no stretch of imagination,  even  though pensionable,  can  at  all be intended to  be  excluded  for determining  the salary which such Member on retirement as a Judge  or  Chief  Justice  of a High Court  is  entitled  to receive  under  Rule  3(b)  of   the  Rules.   In   Pratibha Banerjees case (1995(6) SCC 765) this Court on interpreting Articles  50, 214, 217, 219 and 221 of the Constitution, did come  to the conclusion that a Judge of a High Court belongs to the third organ of the State, which is independent of the other  two organs namely the Executive and the  Legislature. It  is in that sense the Court further observed that a Judge of  the  High  Court occupies a unique  position  under  the Constitution.   But conferring that status to a Judge of the High  Court,  so  as to enable him to discharge  his  duties without  fear  or  favour, affection or ill  will,  has  got nothing  to do in interpreting a particular provision of the Rules  governing the service conditions of the Chairman  and Members  of the Human Rights Commission, when such Judge  on retirement as Chief Justice, is appointed as a member of the Human  Rights Commission.  We are also not in a position  to accept  the  contention that by interpreting,  that  pension received by a retired Chief Justice of a High Court is to be deducted  from  the  salary which he is entitled  to,  as  a Member  of the Human Rights Commission, under the proviso to Rule  3(b)  would in any way affect the independence of  the judiciary  nor would it affect the constitutional scheme and the   unique   position,   a   Judge  occupies   under   the Constitution,  as discussed in Pratibha Banerjees case.  It would  be  appropriate  at this stage to notice  an  earlier Judgment  of  this  Court in Pashupati Nath Sukul  vs.   Nem Chandra  Jain and Ors., 1984(2) SCC 404 where the Court  was considering  the  question whether the Secretary of a  State Legislative  Assembly  can  be held to be  qualified  to  be appointed  as Returning Officer for election to Rajya  Sabha and it is in that context, Articles 102(1)(a), 191(1)(a) and several  other relevant provisions came up for consideration before   the  Court.   The   word  Government  in  Article 102(1)(a)  and  Article  191(1)(a) of the  Constitution  was construed  by the Court and it was held that the  expression

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

an   officer   of  Government  in   Section  21   of   the Representation   of   the  People   Act,  1951,  should   be interpreted  liberally so as to include within its scope the Legislature,  the Executive and the Judiciary and the  Court further  observed that an officer of the State  Legislature, though  belongs under Article 187 to the staff of the  State Legislature,  is  still  an officer of Government  in  the sense  the  expression  Government  is  used  in  Articles 102(1)(a)  and 191(1)(a).  In the aforesaid case, this Court had observed that all the three organs, the Legislature, the Executive   and  the  Judiciary   are  concerned  with   the governance  of the country and in this sense, all the  three organs   together  constitute  the   Government   at   their respective  level.  The Court had also noticed the fact that the  Comptroller  and  Auditor-General of India,  though  is assigned  an  independent  status, is an officer  under  the Union  Government,  as was held in the case  of  Gurugobinda Basu vs.  Sankari Prasad Ghosal, 1964(4) SCR 311.  The Court further observed that the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India  and  the  Judges of the Supreme Court and of  a  High Court  are  not eligible to contest elections to  Parliament and  the State Legislatures in view of Article 102(1)(a) and Article  191(1)(a) of the Constitution, as the case may  be, because  they are serving in connection with the affairs  of the  Union  [see Article 360(4)(b) of the Constitution]  and are,  therefore, holding offices of profit under the Central Government.   The expression Government used in proviso to Rule 3(b) has, therefore, to be construed in the wider sense and  the services rendered by a Judge or Chief Justice of  a High  Court  must be held to be as a service  in  connection with  the  affairs of the Union and as such the  proviso  to Rule 3(b) of the Rules would govern the case of such retired Judge  or Chief Justice in determining the salary, which  he would  be entitled to, on being appointed as a Member of the Human   Rights  Commission.   The   question  can  also   be considered  from yet another angle.  Under the provisions of the Human Rights Commission Act, 1993, the Chairperson would be one who has been a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and a  Member  could be appointed who is or has been a Judge  of the Supreme Court and another Member, who is or has been the Chief  Justice  of the High Court.  In the Rules,  when  the Rule  Making Authority provided for a salary to be paid to a member under Rule 3(b), a proviso was inserted for deduction from  such  salary,  the  amount   of  pension  other   than disability  or  wound  pension,  which such  Member  was  in receipt  of,  in  respect  of any  previous  salaries.   The intention of the Rule making authority is crystal clear that any  pension which a Member has been in receipt of, for  the services  rendered  earlier,  has to be  deducted  from  the salary, which under the Rules has been indicated to be equal to  the  salary  of  the Judge of the  Supreme  Court.   The contention of the petitioner to the effect that the previous service as Chief Justice of a High Court not being one under the  Government of the Union, must be held to be not covered by  the proviso, cannot be accepted, reading the rules as  a whole.   We have, therefore, no hesitation in coming to  the conclusion  that the proviso to Rule 3(b) would apply to the retired  Chief Justice of India or the retired Chief Justice of  a  High Court and the pension which they are in  receipt of,  apart  from the disability or wound pension, has to  be deducted from their salary, which they are entitled to under the  Rules.  The contention of Mr.  Iyer, appearing for  the petitioner, on this score, therefore cannot be sustained.

   Coming  to  the question whether a Member of  the  Human

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

Rights Commission, is entitled to gratuity for the period he serves  the  Commission, it appears that there has  been  no such  provision  in the Rules, entitling a Member  to  claim gratuity.  Rule 10 of the Rules, however stipulates that the conditions of service of the Chairperson and the Members for which  no  express provision is made in the Rules, shall  be determined by the rules and orders applicable to a Secretary to   the   Government   of   India   belonging   to   Indian Administrative Service.  So far as the service conditions of a  Secretary  to  the Government of India belonging  to  the Indian  Administrative  Service  is concerned, the  same  is governed  by a set of Rules framed under Section 3(1) of the All   India  Services  Act,  1951   called  the  All   India Services(Death-cum- Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958.  Under the  aforesaid  Rules, retirement gratuity is granted  to  a Member  of the Service, who retires or is required to retire under  Rule  16, as provided in Rule 17 of the  Rules.   The amount  of gratuity is computed under Rule 18.  The enabling provisions  contained in Rules 16, 17 and 18 do not  provide for  payment  of  gratuity for a  re-employed  person.   The President  of  India,  however in supersession  of  all  the earlier orders in relation to fixation of pay of re-employed pensioners,  promulgated  an Order called the Central  Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986.   The  aforesaid order applies to all the persons  who are  re-employed  in Civil Services and posts in  connection with  the affairs of the Union Government, after  retirement on  getting pension, gratuity and/or Contributory  Provident Fund  benefits.  Rule 14 of the aforesaid orders, stipulates that  re-employed  officers  shall not be eligible  for  any gratuity/death/retirement  gratuity,  for the period of  re- employment, except in those cases covered in Rules 18 and 19 of  the  Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.   The petitioners  case  is  not   covered  under  the  aforesaid provisions  of  the Central Civil Services (Pension)  Rules, 1972.   Therefore, the question for consideration is whether the  appointment of the petitioner as a Member of the  Human Rights Commission would tantamount to re-employment.  In the absence of any definition of the expression re- employment and  applying the common parlance theory, the conclusion  is irresistible  that the said appointment would tantamount  to re-employment  and, therefore, for such period of  service as  Member of the Human Rights Commission, no gratuity would be payable.

   The  only other question that remains for  consideration is  the claim of encashment of leave.  Under the Rules, Rule 4  entitles a person, on appointment as Chairperson or as  a Member  for  earned  leave  and half pay  leave  on  medical certificate  and extraordinary leave.  Rule 4(2) is relevant for  our  purpose which unequivocally indicates that on  the expiry of the term of office in the National Commission, the Chairperson  and  Members shall be entitled to receive  cash equivalent  of  leave  salary in respect  of  earned  leave, standing  to  his credit subject to the condition  that  the maximum of leave encashed under this sub-rule or at the time of  retirement from previous service, as the case may be  or taken  together shall not in any case exceed 240 days.   The petitioner  did encash the cash equivalent of leave for  the period  of 240 days, when he retired as the Chief Justice of Kerala  High Court.  In accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules, he  had  earned, earned leave for 68 days.  But he  has  not been  allowed  to  encash  the same, since  he  had  already encashed  the maximum period of 240 days under sub-rule  (2) of  Rule 4, which sub-rule provides for encashment of leave.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

The  petitioners contention however is that the  expression previous  service  in  sub-rule  (2)  must  refer  to  the preceding  service,  which  the  petitioner  had  served  as Chairperson of the Central Administrative Tribunal and since he  had earned only 161 days of earned leave as Chairman of the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal, the  maximum  period provided under sub-rule (2) will not apply to his case, even though  he has encashed the leave for 240 days, as the Chief Justice  of  Kerala  High Court.  On a bare reading  of  the aforesaid provisions contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 4, we are  unable  to accept this contention inasmuch as  what  is intended  in  the  aforesaid rule is that  no-one  would  be allowed  to encash leave for a period more than 240 days and since  the  petitioner did encash the earned leave  for  240 days as the Chief Justice of Kerala High Court, he would not be  entitled to further encashment for the period of 68 days of  earned leave, which he might have earned as a Member  of the  Human  Rights Commission under Rule 4(1) of the  Rules. The  petitioner, therefore, has rightly not been allowed  to encash his leave in question.  In view of our conclusions on the  three items of claim made by the petitioner, we do  not see  any  violation of fundamental rights of the  petitioner and as such this petition under Article 32 is dismissed.

33