ORDER
A.K. Patnaik, C.J.
1. In this writ petition, we are called upon to decide whether during the period of extra-ordinary leave granted to the Vice Chairman of the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), allowances under Sections 22-A (2) and 22-C of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act of 1954') are payable to him.
2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner is the wife of late A.K. Khaskalam, who was appointed as a Vice Chairman of the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal. Late A.K. Khaskalam, while working as Vice Chairman of the Tribunal fell ill and was taken to Bombay for medical check up. He was found to be suffering from cardiac disease for which a by-pass surgery was necessary. The surgery was performed at the Bombay Hospital at Bombay but late Khaskalam could not recover fully. For treatment of his cardiac disease and kidney infection, late Khaskalam took Earned Leave, commuted leave and extra-ordinary leave and ultimately succumbed to death on 2-10-1999. Late A.K. Khaskalam was granted extra-ordinary leave from 11-9-1998 to 16-12-1998 (97 days) and from 1-2-1999 to 2-10-1999 (244 days). In these two periods totalling to 341 days of extra-ordinary leave, he was not granted allowances by the State Government under Sub-section (2) of Section 22-A and Section 22-C of the Act of 1954.
3. The petitioner moved the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel & Training through the Registrar of the Tribunal by letter dated 7/10-4-2001, but by letter dated 9-7-2001, the Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training informed the Registrar of the Tribunal that as per Section 8 of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, no salary or allowances during or in respect of extra-ordinary leave is granted to a High Court Judge. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for a mandamus to the respondents to pay allowances as provided in Sections 22-A (2) and 22-C of the Act of 1954 for the period of 341 days when late A.K. Khaskalam was granted extra-ordinary leave while he was acting as the Vice Chairman of the Tribunal.
4. Mr. K.K. Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Rule 15-A of the M.P. Administrative Tribunal (Salaries, Allowances and Conditions of Services of Chairman, Vice Chairman and Members) Rules, 1986 (for short 'the Rules of 1986') provides that the conditions of services and other perquisites available to the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Tribunal shall be the same as admissible to a serving Judge of a High Court as contained in the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and High Court Judges (Travelling Allowances) Rules, 1956. He submitted that the provisions of Section 22-A and Section 22-C of the Act of 1954 will therefore be applicable to late A.K. Khaskalam who was working as Vice Chairman of the Tribunal. He submitted that Sub-section (2) of Section 22-A provides that where a Judge does not avail himself of the use of an official residence, he may be paid every month an allowance stipulated therein and Section 22-C of the Act of 1954 provides that a Judge of every High Court shall be entitled to a sumptuary allowance as mentioned therein. He further submitted that Section 22-D of the Act of 1954 exempts such allowance paid to a Judge under Section 22-A (2) and sumptuary allowance paid to a Judge under Section 22-C of the Act of 1954 from liability to pay income-tax. He argued that all these provisions would go to show that so long as a person continues to be a High Court Judge, he would be entitled to the allowance in lieu of rent free official residence as provided under Section 22-A (2) and sumptuary allowance as provided in Section 22-C of the Act of 1954. He argued that since a person is entitled to these allowances under Sections 22-A (2) and 22-C of the Act of 1954 so long as he continues to be a Judge, the provisions under Section 8 of the Act of 1954 that no allowances shall be payable during or in respect of extra-ordinary leave granted to a Judge will not apply to such allowances under Section 22-A (2) and Section 22-C of the Act of 1954. He submitted that late A.K. Khaskalam was thus entitled to the allowances under Section 22-A (2) and Section 22-C of the Act of 1954 as he was the Vice Chairman of the Tribunal even during the period of extra-ordinary leave.
5. Mr. Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4, on the other hand, submitted relying on the return filed by the said respondent that it is clear from the language of Section 8 of the Act of 1954 that no salary and allowances shall be paid during the period, or in respect, of extra-ordinary leave granted to a Judge of the High Court and therefore, allowances under Sections 22-A (2) and 22-C of the Act of 1954 are also not payable to a Judge during the period of extra-ordinary leave. He also relied on the communication dated 9-7-2001 of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel & Training to the Registrar, M.P. Administrative Tribunal clarifying that as per Section 8 of the Act of 1954, no salary and allowance during or in respect of extra-ordinary leave is payable to a High Court Judge. He submitted that late A.K. Khaskalam who was granted extra-ordinary leave while he was working as Vice Chairman of the Tribunal was thus not entitled to allowances under Sections 22-A (2) and 22-C of the Act of 1954.
6. Mr. Dharmendra Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3 referred to the clarification in the letter dated 9-7-2001 of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Trading and submitted that as per Section 8 of the Act of 1954, no salary and allowance in lieu of grant of extra-ordinary leave can be granted to a High Court Judge.
7. Rule 15-A of the Rules of 1956 provides that the conditions of service and other perquisites available to Vice Chairman of the Tribunal are the same as admissible to a serving Judge of a High Court as contained in the Act of 1954. Thus, we have to refer to the provisions of the Act of 1954 for purposes of finding out whether late A.K. Khaskalam was entitled to the allowances under Sections 22-A (2) and 22-C of the Act of 1954 during the period of extra-ordinary leave granted to him. Section 8 of the Act of 1954 is quoted hereinbelow:
8. Extra-ordinary leave.- Extra-ordinary leave may be granted to a Judge for a period not exceeding six months, or for two or more periods, not exceeding in the aggregate six months during the whole period of his service as a Judge in excess of any leave permissible under the foregoing provisions of this chapter, but no salary or allowances shall be payable during or in respect of, such leave.
The last limb of Section 8 of the Act of 1954 quoted above, expressly states that no salary and allowances shall be payable during or in respect of extra-ordinary leave.
8. According to Mr. Trivedi, the word 'allowances' in the last limb of Section 8 of the Act of 1954 is to be construed ejusdem generis with the word 'salary' and this would mean that the allowances which go along with the salary of a Judge and not allowances which are paid to a person so long as he holds the office of a Judge will not be payable to the Judge during the period of extra-ordinary leave. According to him, since the allowance granted under Section 22-A (2) of the Act of 1954 is an allowance given to a Judge in lieu of rent free official accommodation provided to a High Court Judge, such allowance has to be granted to a person so long as he continues to hold the office of a Judge even for the period he was granted extra-ordinary leave. Again, according to him, since the sumptuary allowance granted under Section 22-C of the Act of 1954 to a High Court Judge is granted so long as he holds the office of a Judge, it has to be granted to him even during the period of extra- ordinary leave granted to him. He argued that his contention that the allowances under Sections 22-A (2) and 22-C of the Act of 1954 are granted to a Judge so long as he holds the office of Judge even during the period of extra-ordinary leave granted to him is reinforced by the provisions of Section 22-D of the Act of 1954 exempting such allowances under Section 22-A (2) and 22-C from the liability to Income-tax.
9. We are unable to accept the aforesaid submissions of Mr. Trivedi. Sections 22-A, 22-C and 22-D of the Act of 1954 are quoted hereinbelow:
22-A. Facility of rent free houses.- (1) 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.
(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.
22-C. Sumptuary allowance.- 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.
22-D. Exemption from liability to pay income-tax on certain perquisites received by a Judge.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Income Tax Act, 1961:
(a) the value of rent-free official residence provided to a Judge under Sub-section (1) of Section 22-A or the allowances paid to him under Sub-section (2) of that section;
(b) the value of the conveyance facilities provided to a Judge under Section 22-B;
(c) the sumptuary allowance provided to a Judge under Section 22-C;
(d) the value of leave concession provided to a Judge and members of his family,
shall not be included in the computation of his income chargeable under the head 'Salaries' under Section 15 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
10. Sub-section (1) of Section 22-A of the Act of 1954 provides that 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 and Sub-section (2) of Section 22-A provides that where a Judge does not avail himself of the use of an official residential accommodation, he will be paid every month 'an allowance' of the amount mentioned therein. The language of Sub-section (2) of Section 22-A of the Act of 1954 is thus clear that the amount that is paid to a Judge in lieu of a rent free official residence which he does not avail is an 'allowance'. Similarly, the marginal title as well as the language of Section 22-C of the Act of 1954 is clear that a sumptuary allowance that is granted to a Judge every month is also an 'allowance'. Section 22-D of the Act of 1954 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Income Tax Act, 1961, the value of rent free official residence provided to a Judge under Sub-section (1) of Section 22-A or the allowance paid to him under Sub-section (2) of that section and the sumptuary allowance provided to a Judge under Section 22-C besides the value of the conveyance facilities provided to a Judge under Section 22-B and the value of leave concession provided to a Judge shall not be included in the computation of his income under the head 'salaries' under Section 15 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The object of Section 22-D of the Act of 1954, therefore, is to exempt the four categories of allowances or perquisites mentioned therein from tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961. From a reading of Section 22-D, we cannot possibly hold that the allowances and perquisites mentioned therein have to be granted to a Judge so long as he holds the office as a Judge even where the provisions in the Act of 1954 provide to the contrary. A Judge would be entitled to the allowances and perquisites in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1954 and if a provision of the Act of 1954 says that a Judge would not be entitled to a particular allowance or perquisite in certain circumstances, the Court cannot hold that he would still be entitled to such allowance or perquisite so long as he holds the office of a Judge.
11. Section 8 of the Act of 1954 is express and clear that no allowance shall be payable during or in respect of extra- ordinary leave granted to a Judge. If Section 8 had not provided that no allowances shall be payable in respect of such extra-ordinary leave, we would have happily accepted the contention of Mr. Trivedi but since Section 8 further states that no allowances shall be payable 'during' the extra-ordinary leave, allowances payable to a Judge under Sections 22-A (2) and 22-C of the Act of 1954 would also not be payable to a Judge during the period of extra-ordinary leave. Further, the word 'allowances' cannot be construed ejusdem generis with the preceding word 'salary' which signifies only one species and does not constitute a genus which is essential for application of the ejusdem generis rule.
12. We, thus, hold that the late A.K. Khaskalam was not entitled to the allowances under Sections 22-A(2) and 22-C of the Act of 1954 during the period he was working as Vice Chairman but was on extra-ordinary leave.
13. In the result, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.