Continuing statutory disabilities after repeal justified compensation for the unexpired Lokpal tenure.

Repeal of the enabling law ended the Lokpal's fixed tenure before expiry, but the office-holder remained subject to continuing statutory disabilities attached to the office. The legal analysis treated the loss as more than mere loss of office because the disabling consequences did not disappear on repeal, and the saving provisions were read with the statutory scheme governing those restrictions. On that basis, compensation was warranted for the unexpired part of the tenure, and relief could be moulded on the facts pleaded. The conclusion was that salary for the remaining term was payable as compensation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant, whose tenure as Lokpal ended on repeal of the enabling enactment, was entitled to compensation for loss of salary for the remainder of the term on account of the continued statutory disabilities attaching to the office.

Analysis: The office was created for a fixed term, and the repeal brought the tenure to an end before expiry. The repeal provisions and the general saving rule were examined together with the statutory scheme governing the office, including the restrictions placed on a Lokpal both during and after office. The decisive consideration was that the appellant, having held the office, continued to suffer the disabling consequences attached to it even after cessation, and those burdens were not shown to disappear on repeal. In that situation, the loss was not merely the loss of office but the continuation of statutory restrictions, for which the appellant was required to be compensated. The relief was also capable of being moulded on the facts pleaded.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to compensation by way of the salary for the unexpired part of the tenure, and the appeal succeeded to that extent.

---