IMPORTANT POINT
Members of Bar appointed as Fast Track court Judges are entitled to pension, gratuity and leave encashment.

Headnote:(a) Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 – Rules 2, 11 and 84 – Services paid from a Local Fund are services in 'non-pensionable establishment' – Appellants appointed in a pay scale as Additional District and Sessions Judges (Fast Track Courts) on adhoc basis – Appellants paid from same source of fund as other Additional applicable to members of judicial services of the State – Held, appellants were appointed in 'pensionable establishment'. (Para 24, 26, 27, 28)
       (2002) 5 SCC 1 – Relied upon
       (b) Service jurisprudence – Contractual appointment and appointment to a tenure post – Appellants appointed for limited period on ad hoc basis – Cannot be termed as contractual appointment – Held, It was Tenure appointment – Rule 9(30A), Fundamental Rules of the Tamil Nadu Government – Adhoc appointment and contract appointment not interchangeable terms. (Para 30, 32)
       (c) Constitution of India – article 226 – Instant writ petitions seeking pensionary benefits – High Court dismissing petitions relying on decision in earlier petitions which were filed seeking regularization – Not sustainable. (Para 34)
       (d) Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 – Rules 2, 11, 42, 27 and 78 – Appellants not covered by Contributory Provident Fund Scheme but by General Provident Fund Scheme – Appellants’ qualifying service starting from their taking charge as adhoc judges – Qualifying service of not less than ten years precondition for grant of pension – 3 out of 5 appellants completing ten years of service – The rest 2 appellants entitled to add ¼ of their length of service towards qualifying service in terms of rule 27 – Doing so, they also have qualifying service of more than ten years – All appellants held entitled to compensation pension – Moreover the last two appellants retiring on reaching age of superannuation – Held, the two appellants entitled to superannuation pension and the three to compensation pension. (Para 36, 39, 43, 46)
       2018 (7) Scale 343 – Relied upon
       (2009) 14 SCC 49 – Distinguished
       (e) Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 – Rules 3(m), 43 and 45 – Gratuity – Pension includes gratuity and is payable after five years of service – Appellants already held entitled to pension and have completed more than five years of service – Held, shall also be entitled to gratuity. (Para 54, 55)
       (f) Tamil Nadu Leave Rules, 1933 – Rule 7 – Leave encashment – Appellants having earned leave to their credit on the date when they retired/relieved – Held entitled to encashment subject to maximum of 240 days. (Para 57)
       Facts of the case:
       There are five appellants in these three appeals, who were appointed as Fast Track Judges from the Bar in the State of Tamil Nadu.
       The initial ad hoc appointment of all the appellants was for five years, which was extended. All the appellants were subsequently relieved from their assignments. In the year 2011/2012, appellants filed different writ petitions for their absorption as Additional District and Sessions Judge in the regular cadre, which writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court. After the orders rejecting the claim of the appellants for absorption in regular cadre of Additional District Judges, the appellants filed representations praying for grant of pension and other retiral benefits, which were rejected by the High Court. Second round of litigation was initiated by the appellants claiming retiral benefits including pension, gratuity, and leave encashment, which has been dismissed by the High Court.
       Finding of the court:
       Appellants are entitled to pension, gratuity and leave encashment.
       Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. These three appeals have been filed against the common judgment of Madras High Court dated 01.04.2015 by which judgment, writ petitions filed by the appellants have been dismissed. The questions of facts and law raised in the appeals being similar all the appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. There are five appellants in these three appeals, who were appointed as Fast Track Judges from the Bar in the State of Tamil Nadu, consequent to creation of Fast Track Courts under the Eleventh Finance Commission Report of the Government of India. This Court vide its judgment dated 06.05.2002 in Brij Mohan Lal Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2002) 5 SCC 1 had issued various directions with regard to appointment and other matters pertaining to Fast Track Courts under Eleventh Finance Commission for setting up of 1734 Fast Track Courts in various States of the country.

4. After creation of Fast Track Courts under Eleventh Finance Commission, the Madras High Court vide its order dated 21.11.2001 issued an order pertaining terms and conditions for the Additional District Judges for the Fast Track Courts and the instructions thereon. The High Court vide its Notification dated 19.12.2001 invited applications from the practicing Advocates for the post of Additional District Judges (Fast Track Court) on ad-hoc basis for a period of five years. The terms of the notification provided that applicants should have completed 45 years of age and shall not have reached 55 years as on 01.01.2002.

5. The High Court vide its order dated 14.02.2002 appointed the appellants, who all were advocates as Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Courts) on Ad-hoc Basis. The initial ad-hoc appointment of all the appellants was for five years, which was extended. All the appellants were subsequently relieved from their assignments. In the year 2011/2012, appellants also filed different writ petitions for their absorption as Additional District and Sessions Judge in the regular cadre, which writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court. After the orders rejecting the claim of the appellants for absorption in regular cadre of Additional District Judges, the appellants filed representations praying for grant of pension and other retiral benefits, which were rejected by the High Court. Second round of litigation was initiated by the appellants claiming retiral benefits including pension, gratuity, and leave encashment, which has been dismissed by the High Court by its common judgment dated 01.04.2015. Apart from above common facts regarding the appellants, few individual facts pertaining to their period of working and some other facts need to be separately noted in each appeal, which are as follows:

Civil Appeal Nos. ___________ of 2018 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 24328-24329 of 2015)

6. There are two appellants namely, (i) K. Anbazhagan and (ii) G. Savithri in this appeal. Both were appointed as Ad-hoc Fast Track Judges by the High Court order dated 14.02.2002. The appellant No.1 joined on 23.02.2002 and appellant No.2 joined on 24.02.2002. The appellant No.1, before joining as Fast Track Judge, was working as Additional Public Prosecutor since 1996. The appellant No.1 resigned from his post of Additional Public Prosecutor for joining as Fast Track Judge. The appointment of appellant No.1 was extended upto 31.05.2011, on which date he was attaining 60 years of age. The appellant No.1 was relieved from his assignment w.e.f. 31.05.2011 after putting in total period of 9 years, 5 months and 5 days to his credit. The appellant No.2 was relieved from services by the Registrar General of the High Court by order dated 25.04.2012. Appellant No.2 thus had put in service of more than 10 years as Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court). The appellant No.1 having submitted represent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 808

IMPORTANT POINTMembers of Bar appointed as Fast Track court Judges are entitled to pension, gratuity and leave encashment.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
Members of Bar appointed as Fast Track court Judges are entitled to pension, gratuity and leave encashment.