JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner Sukh Ram Jatav, a retired Officer of the Rajasthan Judicial Services, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is prang for a direction to the respondent State of Rajasthan to grant sanction and make payment of cash equivalent to leave salary for unutilized PL for 255 days due to him, within a period of 30 days from the date of decision of the writ petition. 2. The State of Rajasthan, vide its order dated 9th of November, 2000, ordered for compulsory retirement of the petitioner from the Government services in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules (Old)/Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996. 3. On 11th of October, 2001 the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, with a request to issue sanction of payment of cash equivalent to leave salary for unutilized PL for 255 days due to him. 4. The Registrar General of this Court on 8th of March, 2003 issued necessary sanction for payment of cash equivalent to leave salary for unutilized PL for 255 days due to him. 5. On 3rd of May, 2002, the Sub-Treasury, Keshoraipatan, returned the bill with the remarks that such payment is not admissible to those employees who stood compulsorily retired prior to 20th of August, 2001. This was intimated to the petitioner by the respondent no.3. 6. On 8th of July, 2002 the Registrar General of this Court referred the matter of the petitioner to the respondent State Government for clarification and early necessary action. The State of Rajasthan did not take cognizance of this letter of the Registrar General of this Court. The petitioner sent a notice for demand of justice on 26th of June, 2003 through his Advocate, to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, in the matter but, as usual what it is done by the State Government, it is not attended. 7. The petitioner may be correct in his statement that his notice for demand of justice has been thrown in the waste paper basket. In these facts and circumstances, the petitioner was left with no option except to approach this Court and that is how he is before us. 8. 7. The petitioner may be correct in his statement that his notice for demand of justice has been thrown in the waste paper basket. In these facts and circumstances, the petitioner was left with no option except to approach this Court and that is how he is before us. 8. The respondent State of Rajasthan has not cared, bothered and concerned to file reply to the writ petition; that is also the position remained with the respondent no.4, though he received the notice of the writ petition on 28th of October, 2003. Thus, the averments made in the writ petition stand un-controverted on their behalf. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition and its enclosures. 10. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of (1) Deen Dayal Khunteta v. The State of Rajasthan & Another, 1995(1) RLR 50 = 1995(2) WLC (Rajasthan) 22 , has considered the identical issue and negating this very contention of the learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan held that if Rule 91(B) provides for cash payment in lieu of unutilised privilege leave due on the date of retirement to the employee covered under Rule 244(1) then why should it be denied to those employees who retired under sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rules aforesaid. 11. The difference in between sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) of the Rule 244 of the Rules, 1951 is that under sub-rule (1) the Government servant exercises his own option of retirement on completion of qualifying service as provided therein or on attaining the age prescribed whereas under sub-rule (2) of the Rule 244 of the Rules, 1951 the compulsory retirement is ordered by the appointing authority after completion of qualifying service or on attaining the age as prescribed therein on the ground that he has lost his efficiency and his retention in the services become practically useless. 12. There cannot be two views and it is also not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan that the order of compulsory retirement under sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rules aforesaid, is not a penalty. 13. The Government employees who are prematurely or compulsorily retired under rule aforesaid and those who retired on attaining the age of superannuation, do constitute one class. 13. The Government employees who are prematurely or compulsorily retired under rule aforesaid and those who retired on attaining the age of superannuation, do constitute one class. In all these three categories of the cases there is retirement simplicitor from the Government services of the employees and not by way of penalty. 14. It is a beneficial piece of legislation framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The object of providing cash payment of unutilised leave is that the Government servant who retires from service may have some cash in his hand to arrange his affairs after retirement. The only distinction between these two categories of the retired employees under sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 244 of the Rules, 1951 is that one is voluntarily retired and another is compulsorily retired but the result in both the cases is that the Government employee is retired other than by way of penalty. 15. In Deen Dayyal Khunteta's case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that there is hardly any intelligible differential which distinguishes one from the other. The Division Bench further held that there is no rational to the object for which the Rule 91(B) has been framed in this manner. 16. Rule 91(B) of the Rules, 1951 makes a provision for cash payment in lieu of unutilised privilege leave due on the date of retirement to the employee covered under Rule 244(1) and the Division Bench has rightly said that why should it be denied to those employees who retired under sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rules, 1951. 17. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan, on being put by the Court, does not dispute that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Deen Dayal Khunteta's case (supra) has attained finality. It holds the field as on day. 18. The Single Bench of this Court in (2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1048/1996, Dr. J.K. Jain v. The State of Rajasthan & Others, decided on 9.8.1996 , has held that there can be no discrimination between the employees who retire under the provisions of Rule 244(1) and those who were compulsorily retired under Rule 244(2) of the Rules, 1951. This class of retired employees is entitled to cash payment in lieu of unutilised privilege leave. 19. This class of retired employees is entitled to cash payment in lieu of unutilised privilege leave. 19. The matter before the Division Bench in Deen Dayal Khunteta's case (supra) was also of a Judicial Officer. 20. After the decision of the Division Bench in Deen Dayal Khunteta's case (supra), it appears that the wisdom come to the State Government and the Rajasthan Civil Service Rules, 1951 were amended vide notification No.F.1(5)/FD(Rules) 1996 dated 20th of August, 2001. The amended Rule 91-B(1) reads as under, "91B(1). A Government servant on retirement from service on superannuation, invalid compensation pension or retirement pension under Rule 50 and 53 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 shall be paid cash equivalent to leave salary in respect of the period of unutilised privilege leave not exceeding 300 days at his/her credit at the time of retirement." 21. In the case in hand, it is true that the petitioner retired prior to 21.8.2001, but it is hardly of any substance and material. The view taken by the respondent no.4, the Officer of the respondent No.1 State of Rajasthan, that the case of the petitioner was of prior to amendment incorporated in the Rules, 1951, vide Notification dated 20th of August, 2001, is not entitled for cash equivalent to leave salary in respect of the period of unutilised privilege leave due to him on the date of his retirement, is wholly unjustified, uncalled for the contemptuous. The Division Bench of this Court in Deen Dayal Khunteta's case (supra) has decided the matter on this point which is binding upon the State of Rajasthan. 22. It is really shocking and surprising that the respondent no.4 has returned the bill of the petitioner for cash payment in lieu of unutilised privilege leave due to him on the date of his retirement. This act of the respondent no.4, in fact, amounts to contempt of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Deen Dayal Khunteta's case (supra). 23. The worst part is that the bureaucrats sitting at the Secretariat have not taken any action against this Officer. Not only this, they sat tide over the letter dated 8.7.2002 (Annexure-5) sent by the Registrar General of this court. 23. The worst part is that the bureaucrats sitting at the Secretariat have not taken any action against this Officer. Not only this, they sat tide over the letter dated 8.7.2002 (Annexure-5) sent by the Registrar General of this court. More than one year and four months have already passed but the bureaucrats sitting at the Secretariat, have not cared, bothered and concerned even to respond it what to say to issue clarification. The Registrar General of this Court wrote this letter to the Government that its Officer has returned the bill of the petitioner for cash payment in lieu of unutilised privilege leave due on the date of the petitioner's retirement. The notice for demand of justice was sent in the month of June, 2003. The writ petition is filed on 13th of August, 2003 or even thereafter till date this has also not been responded. 24. From the facts of this case aforestated, it is dearly borne out that the Officers of the State Government sitting at Secretariat is not bothered, cared and concerned with these matters. How this poor retired judicial officer has been dragged in the litigation by the Officers of the State Government despite of a dear-cut judicial mandate of the Division Bench of this Court in his favour, though in another case. 25. On 27th of May, 2003, another Division Bench of this Court in (3) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4935/2002, Smt. Saroj Sharma & Others v. State of Rajasthan & Others , which was also a matter of judicial Officer, decided on identical issue, the claim for payment of cash equivalent to leave salary in respect of the period of unutilised privilege leave for 294 days. That officer was also compulsorily retired from the services before 21st of August, 2001. That judgment was given after notice to the State Government. The Additional Advocate General had put appearance on behalf of the State of Rajasthan. This judgment came much before the petitioner in this case sent the notice for demand of justice. But this recent judgment has also been ignored. Consistently there are judgment after judgment on this point against the State of Rajasthan by this Court, but still this poor judicial officer has not been given these benefits and has been dragged to this litigation. But this recent judgment has also been ignored. Consistently there are judgment after judgment on this point against the State of Rajasthan by this Court, but still this poor judicial officer has not been given these benefits and has been dragged to this litigation. This is not the case where the court should feel contended and satisfied by granting relief to the petitioner as what it is prayed but an exemplary cost is to be awarded against the State of Rajasthan so that in future the officers of the State of Rajasthan may not unnecessarily harass the poor retired employees. 26. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The respondent no.1 State of Rajasthan through the Chief Secretary is directed to pay cash equivalent to leave salary for unutilised privilege leave for 255 days due to the petitioner, within a period of 30 days from he date of receipt of the copy of this order. The State of Rajasthan shall also pay the interest on this amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date the amount became due to the petitioner till the payment thereof to the petitioner. 27. As an exemplary cost, an amount of Rs 25,000/- ( र twenty five thousand only) is awarded against the State of Rajasthan. Out of this amount of cost, an amount of र 1000/- is to be paid to the petitioner towards the expenses of filing of this writ petition as the petitioner is now an Advocate and he himself argued the matter. 28. The Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (for short, 'the Act, 1987) has been enacted by the Parliament to provide free and competent legal services to weaker sections of the society to ensure that opportunity for securing justice is not denied to any citizen by the reason of economic or other disabilities. Section 12 of the Act, 1987 provides the criteria for giving the legal services, which reads as under, "12. Section 12 of the Act, 1987 provides the criteria for giving the legal services, which reads as under, "12. Criteria for giving legal services.-Every person who has to file or defend a case shall be entitled to legal services under this Act, if that (a) a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe; (b) a victim of trafficking inhuman beings or beggar as referred to in article 23 of the Constitution; (c) a woman or a child; (d) a mentally ill otherwise disabled person; (e) a person under circumstances of undeserved want such as being a victim of a mass disaster ethnic violence, caste atrocity, flood drought earthquake or industrial disaster; or (f) an industrial workman; or (g) in custody including custody in a protective home within the meaning of clause (g) of section 2 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 or in a juvenile home within the meaning of clause (j) of section 2 of the Juvenile justice Act, 1986 in a psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home within the meaning of clause (g) of section 2 of the mental Health Act, 1987; or (h) in receipt of annual income less than rupees nine thousand or such other higher amount as may be prescribed by the State Government, if the case is before a court other than the Supreme Court and less than rupees twelve thousand or such other higher amount as may be prescribed by the Central Government, if the case is before the Supreme Court." 29. Legal services are defined in clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act, 1987 which reads, "(c) "legal service" includes the rendering of any service in the conduct of any case or the legal proceeding before any Court or other authority or tribunal and the giving of advice on any legal matter." 30. The Rajasthan State Legal Services authority in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 29-A made the Regulations to give effect to the provisions of the Act, 1987, namely, the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority Regulations, 1999 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Regulations, 1999') They were published in the Rajasthan Raj Patra Part IV- Ga, February 5, 1999. 31. Regulation 18 of the Regulations, 1999 provides for the mode of providing the legal services, which reads as under, "18. 31. Regulation 18 of the Regulations, 1999 provides for the mode of providing the legal services, which reads as under, "18. Mode of providing Legal Services:- Legal Services may be provided in all or any one or more than one of the following modes, namely : (a) process fees and all other charges payable or incurred in connection with any legal proceedings except court fees; (b) representation by a legal practitioner in a legal proceeding; (c) obtaining of certified copies of orders and other documents in legal proceedings; (d) preparation of a paper book including printing and translation of documents, in the legal proceedings; (e) any other expenses which chairman of Legal Services Committee or District Authority deem fit to grant in special circumstances of a given case." 32. Regulation 22 of the Regulations 1999 makes a provision for preparation of panel of legal practitioners who are prepared to represent or plead the cases on behalf of the reasons provided with legal aid under the Regulations, 1999. Sub-clause (2) of Regulation 22 of the Regulations 1999 reads as under, "(2) In the first instance endeavour shall be made to arrange services of the Legal Practitioner on honorarium basis. If such services cannot be so arranged or can not be so arranged without providing assistance by another legal practitioner, the concerned Committee/District Authority may appoint a legal practitioner and pay the fee at the following rate : (a) Court of Tehsildar, Executive Magistrate, Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Officer, Assistant Collector and other similar courts etc. र 400/- per case; (b) Court of Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Addl. Collector- cum-Additional District Magistrate, Civil Judge (Senior Division) cum Chief Judicial Magistrate and Civil Judge (Senior Division) cum Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Revenue Appellate Authority and other similar Tribunals र 600/-; (c) Court of District & Sessions Judge, Additional District and Sessions Judge, र 900/- per case; (d) High Court र 1100/- per case; (e) In any case for reasons to be recorded in writing it is considered by the Chairman to be of such nature/importance requiring payment of higher fees to the legal practitioner, may pay higher fees as it deems fit." 33. A conjoint reading of these two Regulations 18 and 22 of the Regulations, 1999 gives out that it is not the free legal aid which is provided to a litigant but an act to bestow benefits to the Advocates. 34. I came across an appeal filed in this Court under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1985 (sic ?) by the appellants therein against the judgment dated 17th of January, 2002 of the learned District Judge, Sikar in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.87/1999; the appellants therein were - the widow and two minor sons of age 13 and 10 years respectively. That appeal was presented on 9th March, 20902 (sic ?). The registry pointed out the defect "court fees deficit र 9360/-". As per clause (c) of Section 12 of the Act, 1987 the appellants therein were entitled for free legal services. 35. The free legal services which are to be provided to the persons enumerated in clause (a) to (h) of Section 12 of the Act, 1987 is not a charity or donation or mercy or sympathy or concession to them. It is a legal right conferred to this lass of persons under the Act, 1987. The appellants therein are poor persons. They were not in a position to make the payment of the full court fees i.e. र 9360/-. It could not have been provided to them as per clause (a) of the Regulation 18 of the Regulations, 1999. As per this clause, a litigant of the category enumerated in Section 12 of the Act, 1987 shall get the free services of an Advocate but not the court fees. In case this category of litigant is to arrange the handsome amount of court fees payable on the appeal, he can also arrange for the fees of the Advocate. 36. The question does arise whether it is a real and effective free legal service to the category of persons enumerated in Section 12 of the Act, 1987. Be that as it may, it is not the question to be gone ii.Lu, and examine the validity of this provision as contained in clause (a) of Regulation 18 of the Regulations, 1999 but, prima facie, we are of the opinion that it is a matter for serious consideration of the Rajasthan State Legal Service Authority. 37. Be that as it may, it is not the question to be gone ii.Lu, and examine the validity of this provision as contained in clause (a) of Regulation 18 of the Regulations, 1999 but, prima facie, we are of the opinion that it is a matter for serious consideration of the Rajasthan State Legal Service Authority. 37. So lone as this provision is not amended or otherwise after consideration it is not struck down, this poor category of litigants enumerated in clauses (a) to (h) of Section 12 of the Act, 1987 may be deprived of their legal right of free legal competent services. 38. Be that as it may, the Rajasthan Legal Services Authority, Jaipur is directed to open an Account under the Head "Court Fees payable to the litigants who are entitled for Free Legal Service". The State of Rajasthan is directed to deposit र 24000/- of costs with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur. 39. On deposit of the amount of cost of र 24,000/-, it shall be kept in the Account aforesaid for providing the court fees to the categories of persons enumerated in clauses (a) to (h) in Section 12 of the Act, 1987. The amount deposited by the State Government be utilised for opening the account aforesaid.Petition allowed. *******