“45. Death­cum­Retirement Gratuity.­(1)(a)A Government servant, who has completed five years’ qualifying service and has become eligible for service gratuity or pension under rule 43, shall, on his retirement be granted death­cum­retirement gratuity as in the table below for each completed six monthly period of qualifying service, subject to a maximum of fifteen times, the emoluments:­” – The judgment of the High Court dated 01.04.2015 is set aside and the Civil Appeals filed by the appellants are allowed. (2) The respondents are directed to sanction superannuation pension to appellants K. Anbazhagan and P.G. Rajagopal in accordance with 1978 Rules. (3) The respondents are directed to sanction compensation pension to the appellants, namely, Selvi G. Savithri, R. Radha and A.S. Hassina. (4) All the appellants are entitled for payment of gratuity in accordance with 1978 Rules. (5) The respondents are also directed to permit encashment of earned leave to the credit of the appellants subject to a maximum of 240 days. 52 (6) All above retiral benefits be computed and paid to the appellants within a period of two months from today. In the event payments are made after two months, the appellants shall be entitled for such payments alongwith the simple interest @ 7% per annum. (7) The parties shall bear their own costs

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8216­8217 OF 2018

(Arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 24328­24329/2015)

K. ANBAZHAGAN & ANR.                     … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE REGISTRAR GENERAL

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS & ANR.              … RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8218­8221 OF 2018

(Arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 26929­26932/2015)

R. RADHA & ANR.                     … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.               … RESPONDENT(S)

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8222 OF 2018

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5467/2016)

P.G. RAJAGOPAL                            … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE REGISTRAR GENERAL

HIGH COURT AT MADRAS & ANR.              … RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. These   three   appeals   have   been   filed   against   the   common

2

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

3

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

4

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. 24328­24329 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

5

representation   for   grant   of   pension   and   other   retiral

benefits,   an   order   dated   11.10.2012   was   issued   by   the

Registrar General of High Court of Madras by which the claim

of   appellant   No.1   for   grant   of   pension   and   other   retiral

benefits has been rejected.  The appellant No.2 had also made

a   representation   for   grant   of   pension   and   other   retiral

benefits, which too was rejected.  Writ Petition No. 5187 of

2014   was   filed   by   appellant   No.2   whereas   Writ   Petition   No.

23532 of 2014 was filed by the appellant No.2, which  has been

dismissed by the common judgment dated 01.04.2015.

Civil   Appeal   Nos.   ___________   of   2018

(arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 26929­26932 of 2015)

7. This appeal has been filed by two appellants namely R.

Radha and A.S. Hassina.  Both the appellants were appointed by

the   same   appointment   order   dated   14.02.2002.   Both   the

appellants   joined   on   23.02.2002.     Both   the   appellants   were

relieved by order dated 25.04.2012 of the Registrar General.

After   unsuccessfully   challenging   the   relieving   order   dated

25.04.2012   in   the   High   Court,   they   also   submitted

representation   dated   14.08.2014   claiming   pension   and   other

retiral benefits.  The representations of the appellants were

rejected on 06.11.2014. The appellant No.1 filed Writ Petition

No. 2756 of 2015 whereas appellant No.2 filed a Writ Petition

6

No. 2755 of 2015.  Both the writ petitions have been dismissed

on 01.04.2015.

Civil   Appeal   No.   ___________   of   2018

(arising out of SLP (C) No. 5467 of 2016)

8. The appellant was also appointed by the same order dated

14.02.2002, in pursuance of which, he joined on 24.02.2002.

On 28.10.2010, the appellant was relieved of his position as

Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) w.e.f. 31.10.2010

on   which   date   he   was   attaining   60   years   of   age.     The

petitioner’s claim for pension was rejected on 13.07.2011 by

the High Court. Writ Petition No. 4276 of 2013 was filed by

the appellant praying for quashing the order dated 13.07.2011

and   praying   for   direction   to   pay   pension   and   other   retiral

benefits, which petition has also been rejected on 01.04.2015.

9. We   have   heard   Shri   A.   Mariarputham,   learned   senior

counsel for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for

the High Court as well as the State of Tamil Nadu.

10. Learned senior counsel for the appellants contends that

High   Court   committed   error   in   rejecting   the   claim   of   the

appellants for pension, gratuity and leave encashment on wrong

premise that appellants were contract appointees and they are

not   borne   on   pensionable   establishment.     He   submits   that

7

appointment of appellants by direct recruitment from Bar was

on adhoc basis, which is clear from the advertisement inviting

applications for filling the post.  He submits that appellants

are   not   contract   employees   and   on   that   ground   denial   of

retiral benefits is unsustainable.   He further submits that

Fast Track Court Judges were in the same establishment as the

regular   Additional   District   Judges.     They   being   not   in   a

separate or independent establishment, they were clearly borne

on pensionable establishment.   It is further submitted that

ad hoc appointments of Fast Tract Courts were made by both the

sources   i.e.   by   promotion   of   judges   from   lower   division   as

well as from the bar.  There cannot be any dispute that cadre

of   Additional   District   Judges   is   borne   on   pensionable

establishment, hence there cannot be any differentiation with

regard to establishment in which both  ad hoc  appointees were

borne.   All the appellants have completed qualifying service

of   ten   years   under   the   Tamil   Nadu   Pension   Rules,   1978

(hereinafter   referred   to   as   “1978   Rules”)   and   were   clearly

entitled for pension and gratuity.   It is further submitted

that before High Court both the claim of gratuity and leave

encashment   were   also   raised   by   the   appellants   but   the   High

Court   did   not   advert   to   the   claim   of   gratuity   or   leave

encashment.     The   appellant   K.   Anbazhagan   was   relieved   on

8

31.05.2011 after attaining the age of sixty years, hence he

was   clearly   entitled   for   superannuation   benefits   under   the

1978 Rules.  Learned senior counsel for the appellants further

submits   that   all   the   Fast   Track   Court   Judges,   who   were

appointed from bar were entitled to add additional period to

their service as per Rule 27 as well as in accordance with

judgment of this Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs.

All India Young Lawyers Association (Regd.) and Ors., (2009)

14 SCC 49.  It is contended that entitlement for  gratuity is

completion of five years of service and none of the appellants

could have been denied the gratuity.  It is further submitted

that   there   was   GPF   deduction   from   the   salary   of   all   the

appellants,   which   also   proves   that   they   were   part   of   the

pensionable establishment and entitled for payment of pension.

11. With   regard   to   appellant   K.   Anbazhagan,   it   is   further

submitted   that   he   has   earlier   worked   as   Additional   Public

Prosecutor, which was not a pensionable post. Rule 11(3) of

1978 Rules, provides that 50% of service in a non­pensionable

post would be added in his service.  Thus, all the appellants

have completed ten years of qualifying service.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the High Court supporting

9

the judgment and the order contends that the appellants were

appointed on Fast Track Courts on contract basis.  Fast Track

Courts   cannot   be   said   to   have   been   created   in   pensionable

establishment hence the writ petition of the appellants have

rightly   been   dismissed.   It   is   further   submitted   that

appellant’s   claim   for   regularisation   on   post   of   Additional

District Judge had been rejected, which was upheld by the High

Court   vide   its   judgment   dated   20.07.2012.     The   appellants

functioned purely on adhoc basis and were not appointed under

the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment)

Rules,   1995  nor   were   absorbed   in   any   regular   vacancy   hence

they   are   not   eligible   for   any   retiral   benefits,   which   are

available   to   those   who   were   appointed   by   due   recruitment

process under the above 1995 Rules.  Tenure of the Fast Track

Courts was initially for only five years under the Eleventh

Finance Commission and subsequently extended for another five

years.     Government   of   Tamil   Nadu   had   further   extended   the

tenure  of  courts  for  a period  of  one  year  upto  31.03.2012.

Thereafter vide Government Order dated 26.08.2011, Government

of Tamil Nadu had sanctioned retention of 49 Fast Track Courts

in  the  cadre  of District  Judge  functioning  in  the  State of

Tamil   Nadu.     The   appellants   having   accepted   the   purely

temporary   nature   of   the   post   to   which   they   were   appointed,

10

they now cannot contend claiming all the benefits available to

those,   who   have   been   appointed   to   a   substantive   post   by   a

recruitment process.

13. Learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   State   of   Tamil   Nadu

while adopting the submissions of the learned counsel for the

High Court has submitted that appellants did not fulfill the

conditions   for   grant   of   pension   and   other   retiral   benefits

under the 1978 Rules, hence their claim was rightly rejected.

14.     We   have   considered   the   submissions   of   the   learned

counsel for the parties and have perused the records.

15. Before we proceed to examine the respective contentions

of   the   parties,   it   is   necessary   to   notice   the   relevant

background   facts   for   creation   of   Fast   Track   Courts   in   the

country   and   manner   and   nature   of   appointments   made.

16. The Eleventh Finance Commission allocated funds for the

purpose of setting up of 1734 Courts in various States to deal

11

with   the   long   pending   cases   particularly   sessions   cases.

Consequent to allocation of funds by the Finance Commission,

the State Governments were required to take necessary steps to

establish such courts.  Finance Commission had suggested that

States   may   consider   re­employment   of   retired   judges   for

limited period for the disposal of pending cases.  Fast Track

Courts   scheme   was   challenged   in   different   High   Courts

primarily   on   the   ground   that   there   was   no   constitutional

sanction   for   employment   of   retired   judges   and   effective

guidelines have not been issued.   This Court considered the

controversy after transferring various writ petitions pending

in   the   different   High   Courts   under   Article   139A   of   the

Constitution of India.   The issues pertaining to Fast Track

Courts were decided by this Court in Brij Mohan Lal Vs. Union

of India and Others, (2002) 5 SCC 1.  After noticing the funds

allocated   under   the   Eleventh   Finance   Commission   and   other

respective contentions, this Court issued various directions

in Para 10.  With regard to recruitment on Fast Track Courts,

directions   1   to   4   were   given   in   Para   10,   which   are   as

follows:­

12

“10. Keeping in view the laudable objectives with

which   the   Fast   Tract   Courts   Scheme   has   been

conceived   and   introduced,   we   feel   the   following

directions,   for   the   present,   would   be   sufficient

to   take   care   of   initial   teething   problems

highlighted by the parties:

Directions by the Court:

13

1. The first preference for appointment of judges

of the Fast Track Courts is to be given by ad­hoc

promotions   from   amongst   eligible   judicial

officers.   While   giving   such   promotion,   the   High

Court shall follow the procedures in force in the

matter   of   promotion   to   such   posts   in

Superior/Higher   Judicial   Services.

2. The second preference in appointments to Fast

Track Courts shall be given to retired judges who

have good service records with no adverse comments

in   their   ACRs,   so   far   as   judicial   acumen,

reputation   regarding   honesty,   integrity   and

character are concerned. Those who were not given

the benefit of two years extension of the age of

superannuation,   shall   not   be   considered   for

appointment.   It   should   be   ensured   that   they

satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 233(2)

and   309   of   the   Constitution.   The   High   Court

concerned shall take a decision with regard to the

minimum­maximum age of eligibility to ensure that

they are physically fit for the work in Fast Track

Courts.

3.   No   Judicial   Officer   who   was   dismissed   or

removed   or   compulsorily   retired   or   made   to   seek

retirement   shall   be   considered   for   appointment

under   the   Scheme.   Judicial   Officers   who   have

sought   voluntary   retirement   after   initiation   of

Departmental   proceedings/inquiry   shall   not   be

considered   for   appointment.

4. The third preference shall be given to members

of the Bar for direct appointment in these Courts.

They   should   be   preferably   in   the   age   group   of

35­45 years, so that they could aspire to continue

against the regular posts if the Fast Track Courts

cease   to   function.   The   question   of   their

continuance   in   service   shall   be   reviewed

periodically   by   the   High   Court   based   on   their

performance.   They   may   be   absorbed   in   regular

vacancies,   if   subsequent   recruitment   takes   place

and their performance in the Fast Track Courts is

found satisfactory. For the initial selection, the

14

High Court shall adopt such methods of selection

as are normally followed for selection of members

of   the   Bar   as   direct   recruits   to   the

Superior/Higher Judicial Services.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”

17. One more direction, which needs to be noticed is Direction

No. 16 where this Court directed that persons appointed under

the Scheme will be governed for service benefits by the rules

and regulations, which are applicable to the members of the

judicial   services   of   the   State   of   equivalent   status.

Direction No. 16 is as follows:­

“16. Persons appointed under the Scheme shall be

governed, for the purpose of leave, reimbursement

of medical expenses. TA/DA and conduct rules and

such   other   service   benefits,   by   the   rules   and

regulations which are applicable to the members of

the Judicial Services of the State of equivalent

status.”

18. In Para 12, States were directed to ensure compliance in

following words:­

“12.   Copies   of   the   judgment   be   sent   by   the

Registry of this Court to each High Court and the

State Government concerned for ensuring compliance

with our directions.”

15

19. Even   before   the   aforesaid   directions   were   issued   on

06.05.2002, different High Courts in the country in pursuance

of   Eleventh   Finance   Commission   allocation   proceeded   to   take

steps   for   setting   up   of   the   Fast   Track   Courts.     On   the

recommendations received from the High Court of Madras, the

Government   of   Tamil   Nadu   granted   sanctions   of   post   by   two

Government   orders,   for   30   posts   (dated   03.08.2001)   and   19

posts   (dated   18.12.2001)   respectively.     In   the   present

appeals, we are concerned with appointment of the appellants,

which   were   made   on   19   sanctioned   posts,   hence   we   need   to

notice the Government Order dated 18.12.2001, by which 19 more

Fast Track Courts were sanctioned.   Para 3 of the Government

Order dated 18.12.2011 provides for sanction of posts which is

as follows:­

“3. The   proposals   of   the   High   Court   has   been

examined by the Government and they have decided

to accept them.  The Government accordingly direct

that as proposed by the High Court, 19 Fast Track

Courts be constituted in the places mentioned in

the Annexure to this order.   The Government also

accord sanction for the creation of the following

posts   temporarily   for   a   period   of   one   year   from

the date of appointment.

16

Sl. No. Designation of the post Scale of pay

1. District Judge (Addl

District Judge cadre)

15000­18600

2. Translator 5500­9000

3. Assistant 4000­6000

4. Steno Typist 4000­6000

5. Typist 3200­4900

6. Office Assistants 2550­3200

17

The   Presiding   Officers   of   these   courts   would   be

the pay drawing officers.”

20. After   creation   of   the   posts,   High   Court   issued   a

Notification dated 19.12.2001 inviting applications from the

practicing   advocates   for   being   considered   for   the   post   of

Additional   District   Judge   for   Fast   Track   Courts   on  ad   hoc

basis.   Notification   dated   19.12.2001   reads   as   under:­

“Notification No. 159/2001

Applications   are   invited   from   the   practicing

Advocates possessing  the following qualifications

for   being   considered   for   the   post   Additional

District Judge (Fast Track Court) on Ad hoc basis

for a period of 5 years. The post carries a Scale

of Pay of Rs.15000­400­18600.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”

21. The   appellants   who   were   all   practicing   advocates   and

fulfilling   the   eligibility   as   required   in   the   notification

submitted the applications.  The High Court after calling the

appellants   to   appear   in   interview   sent   a   proposal   to   the

Government recommending 15 names for appointment as Additional

District   Judge.     The   State   Government  by  order   dated

14.02.2002 appointed all the appellants.   Paragraphs 4 and 5

of the order of the State Government dated 14.02.2002 is as

follows:­

18

“4. The Government in consultation with the High

Court   Madras,   hereby   appoint   the   following   15

(Fifteen)   Advocates   as   Additional   District   and

Sessions   Judges   (Fast   Track   Courts)   on  Ad   hoc

Basis subject to the terms and conditions fixed by

the High Court, Madras:­

Thiru/Tmt/Selvi

1. K. Anbazhagan

2. G.K. Bharathi

3. Bhagirathi R Angarajan

4. V.B. Chinnappan

5. R. Duraisamy

6. A. Devaki

7. A.S. Hassina

8. V. Meganathan

9. S. Mani

10. P. Pandurangan

11. K. Pandurangan

12. R. Radha

13. P.G. Rajagopal

14. M. Sekar &

15. G. Savithri

5. The   above   Additional   District   and   Sessions

Judges will draw a pay of Rs.15,000/­ in the scale

of   Rs.15000­400­18600­   and   other   usual

allowances.”

22. We may first notice the reasons given by the High Court

for rejecting the claim of pension of the appellants. The High

19

Court   has   mainly   given   following   reasons   for   rejecting   the

claim:

1) The Fast Track Courts created under Eleventh Finance

Commission   cannot   be   said   to   have   been   created   in   a

‘pensionable establishment’.

2) Rule 11 of 1978 Rules, which provides for commencement

of   qualifying   service   does   not   cover   appointment   on

contractual   basis.   The   appointments   of   appellants   were

appointments   on   contract   basis,   hence   they   are   not

covered by Rule 11 of 1978 Rules.

3)   Division   Bench   of   High   court   in   its   judgment   dated

20.07.2012   rendered   in   Writ   Petition   No.13703­13705   of

2012 treated the appointment of appellants as contractual

appointment.

23. The   first   issue   to   be   answered   is   as   to   whether   the

appointments   of   appellants   were   appointment   on   ‘pensionable

establishment’   or   not.   The   expression   ‘pensionable

establishment’ is not defined under the 1978 Rules. Rule 2 of

1978   Rules   which   provides   for   application   of   Rules   is   as

follows:­

“2.   Application:­  Save   as   otherwise   provided   in

these   rules,   these   Rules   shall   apply   to   all

Government Servants appointed to Services and posts

20

in connection with the affairs of the State which

are   borne   on   pensionable   establishments,   whether

temporary or permanent, but shall not apply toa)

Persons   in   causal   and   daily   rated

employment;

b) Persons paid from contingencies;

c)   Persons   employed   on   contract   except   when

the contract provids otherwise;

d) Members of the All­India Services;

e)   Persons   who   are   entitled   to   the   benefits

under   the   Factories   Act,   1948   and   the

Employees   Provident   Fund   Act,   1952   excluding

those who are governed by Statutory Services

Rules and belong to pensionable service.”

24. The expression ‘pensionable establishment’ has been used

in   Rule   2.   Rule   11   sub­Rule   (3)   also   uses   the   expression

‘non­pensionable establishment’. An indication in chapter 12

of the Rules i.e. Rule 84 is given that service paid for from

a Local Fund does not qualify for pension which indicates that

services   paid   for   from   a   Local   Fund   are   services   in

‘non­pensionable   establishment’.   For   the   purposes   of   this

case, we have to only consider as to whether the establishment

where appellants were appointed and working was a ‘pensionable

establishment’ or ‘non­pensionable establishment’.

25. We   have   noticed   above   the   Government   Order   dated

18.12.2001 by which the State Government created nineteen Fast

21

Track Courts of District Judges(Additional District Judges) in

the   pay   scale   of   Rs.15000­18600.   The   appellants   in   their

appointment Order dated 14.02.2002 were also referred to as

having   been   appointed   as   Additional   District   and   Sessions

Judges (Fast Track Courts) on ad­hoc basis. The appointment

order   further   provided   that   the   appellants   as   Additional

District and Sessions Judges will draw a pay in the scale of

Rs.15000­400­18600 and other usual allowances. The appellants

were appointed in the Judicial establishment of the district

and were part of the Subordinate Courts under the control of

the   High   Court.   Clause   9   of   the   Government   Order   dated

18.12.2001 read as follows:

“9. The expenditure involved in the proposal shall

be   debited   to   2014.00   Administration   of   Justice

800­other Expenditure­II State Plan – JA Eleventh

Finance Commission– Upgradation and Special Problem

Grant setting up of additional courts for disposal

of long pending cases 0.9 Grants in Adl.03. Other

grants for Specific Scheme (D.P.C.No.2014.00 800 JA

0934)”

26. The payment of salary to the appellants were made from

same   sources   by   which   other   Additional   District   Judges   and

other Judicial Officers of the State were being paid. There is

no indication from any of the material produced before us that

the appellants were appointed on any different establishment

22

than the Judicial establishment of the District.

27. We have noticed above that this Court in  Brij Mohan Lal

Vs. Union of India and others in paragraph 10 of the judgment

has   directed   that   persons   appointed   under   the   Scheme(Fast

Track Courts Scheme) shall be governed, for the purposes of

leave,   reimbursement   of   medical   expenses,   TA/DA   and   conduct

rules   and   such   other   service   benefits,   by   the   rules   and

regulations   which   are   applicable   to   the   members   of   the

judicial services of the State of equivalent status.

28. By   direction   10(16),   this   Court   had   directed   the   State

Governments   to   ensure   compliance,   hence,   the   terms   and

conditions of service of appellants were same as those other

judicial  officers  of  the  State  as  per  Order of  this Court.

High Court in its judgment although observed that Fast Track

Courts   cannot   be   said   to   have   been   created   in   ‘pensionable

establishment’   but   said   conclusion   has   been   arrived   without

considering relevant materials and without giving any cogent

reasons.   We   thus   are   of   the   view   that   appointment   of

appellants was in ‘pensionable establishment’.

23

29. Now, we come to the second reason given by the High Court

that   the   appointments   of   the   appellants   were   contractual

appointments. We have already noticed that the appointments of

the appellants were made against nineteen sanctioned posts of

Additional   District   Judges   by   Government   Order   dated

18.12.2001.   The   notification   which   was   issued   by   the   High

Court   inviting   applications   from   practising   Advocates

mentioned   that   applications   are   invited   from   practising

Advocates   for   being   considered   for   the   post   of   Additional

District Judge (Fast Track Court) on ad­hoc basis for a period

of five years. It further mentioned that the post carries a

Scale   of   Pay   of   Rs.15000­400­18600.   Thus,   the   notification

inviting applications never mentioned that it is a contractual

appointment.   Further,   the   appointment   order   issued   to   the

appellants dated 14.02.2002, in paragraph 3 stated as follows:

“3. Accordingly, the High Court, Madras, has called

for   applications   from   eligible   Advocates   for

filling   up   of   15   posts   of   Additional   District

Judges (Fast Track Courts), conducted interview and

sent proposals to Government recommending 15 names

of Advocates for appointment as Additional District

and   Sessions   Judges(Fast   Track   Courts)   on   ad   hoc

basis.”

The   appointment   order   thus   clearly   mentioned   that   the

appointment is on ad­hoc basis.

24

30. In   service   jurisprudence,   the   appointments   are   made   by

employer   with   different   nomenclature/characteristics.

Appointments   are   made   both   on   permanent   or   temporary   basis

against permanent post or temporary post. The appointment can

also be made on ad­hoc basis on permanent or temporary post.

There   is   one   common   feature   of   appointments   of   permanent,

temporary   or   ad­hoc   appointment   i.e.   those   appointments   are

made against the post whether permanent or temporary. On the

contrary, for contractual appointment, there is no requirement

of   existence   of   any   post.   A   contractual   appointment   is   not

normally   made   against   a   post.   Further,   contractual

appointments are also not normally on Pay Scale. On the mere

fact   that   the   advertisement   as   well   as   the   appointment   was

made   initially   for   a   period   of   five   years,   the   nature   of

appointment of the appellants cannot be termed as contractual

appointment. When a Government servant is contemplated to hold

a certain post for a limited period it is a Tenure Post.

31. The   Fundamental   Rules   of   the   Tamil   Nadu   Government

defines   Tenure   Post.   Fundamental   Rule   9(30­A)   defines   the

Tenure post in following manner:

“30­A. Tenure Post means a permanent post which an

25

individual   Government   servant   may   not   hold   for

more than a limited period.”

32. The fact that the advertisement limited the appointment

for   a   period   of   five   years   only   becausse     the   posts   were

contemplated   for   five   years   only,   the   appointment   of   the

appellants   at   best   can   be   said   as   “Tenure   appointment”.

Although   temporary,   ad­hoc   and   contractual   appointments   are

used in contradiction to a regular and permanent appointment

but   between   ad­hoc   appointment   and   contract   appointment,

distinction   is   there   in   service   jurisprudence   and   both   the

expressions   cannot   be   interchangeably   used.   When   the

advertisement against which the appellants were appointed and

the   appointment   order   mentions   the   appointment   as   ad­hoc

appointment, we cannot approve the view of the High Court that

the nature  of  the  appointment  of  the  appellants was only  a

contractual appointment.

33. Now, we come to the third reason given by the High Court.

The Division Bench of the High Court vide its judgment dated

20.07.2012   in   W.P.No.13703­13705/2012   held   that   the

appointment of the petitioners was on contract basis, hence,

the   appointment   has   to   be   treated   as   appointment   on

contractual basis. The judgment of Division Bench of Madras

26

High court in above writ petition has been brought on record

as   Annexure   P­11.   Three   Writ   Petitioners   namely   R.Radha,

A.S.Hassina   and   G.Savithri   had   filed   three   writ   petitions

challenging   the   Order   dated   25.04.2012   by   which   they   were

relieved from the post of Additional District Judge(Fast Track

Courts).   The   writ   petition   was   filed   by   those   writ

petitioners,   questioning   the   Order   dated   25.04.2012   and

further seeking direction to consider the writ petitioners for

absorption and regularization of their services as Additional

District Judges. The Court in the aforesaid writ petitions was

thus   concerned   with   the   challenge   to   Order   relieving   the

appellants on 25.04.2012 and the question as to whether the

appellants were entitled to be absorbed as Additional District

Judges. The Division Bench upheld that the discontinuation by

the High  court  on  the  ground  that  Fast  Track  Courts itself

came to an end, the appellants could not have been allowed to

continue. Further, the High Court did not accept the claim of

the writ petitioners that they are entitled for regularization

and absorption. In the above context, the High Court observed

in paragraph 16 that the discontinuation and relieving of the

services   of   the   writ   petitioners   are   not   coming   within   the

meaning of dismissal, removal or termination. The High Court

observed that the ad­hoc appointments given to the petitioners

27

on   contract   basis   were   discontinued   and   they   were   relieved

without any stigma. The High court in the above writ petitions

was not concerned with the claim of the appellants with the

nature of the appointment of the appellants for the purposes

of   grant   of   pension.   As   noted   above   Rule   2   of   1978   Rules

excludes certain categories from application of rules. One of

such category is “persons employed on contract except when the

contract   provides   otherwise”.   Whether   the   case   of   the

appellants   was   covered   by   the   excluded   category   under   Rule

2(C) is a question which has arisen in these proceedings and

was not subject matter of earlier writ petitions decided on

20.07.2012.

34. Thus,   any   observation   made   by   the   High   Court   while

dismissing the writ petitions on 20.07.2012 challenging their

relieving orders and claim of absorption as regular District

Judges   has   to   be   read   in   context   of   the   aforesaid   writ

petitions and cannot be accepted as any expression regarding

entitlement or dis­entitlement of the appellants with regard

to claim of pension. We, thus, are of the view that High Court

instead of referring to Rule 78 and especially Rule 2 did not

advert to the nature of appointment in the above reference and

28

followed the judgment dated 20.07.2012 which was rendered in

different context. In above view of the matter, all the three

reasons   given   by   the   High   Court   for   dismissing   the   writ

petitions are unsustainable. But the question still remains as

to whether appellants are entitled for pension, gratuity and

leave encashment as claimed by them in their writ petitions.

35. We   thus   now   proceed   to   examine   the   above   claim   in

accordance with 1978 Rules, which governs the grant of pension

and   other   relevant   aspects.

36. Now, we revert to 1978 Rules to find out as to whether

the appellants were entitled for grant of pension.   We have

already noticed Rule 2, which provides for application of the

rules   to   all   Government   servants   appointed   to  Services   and

posts  in  connection with  the   affairs   of   the   State   which   are

borne on  pensionable establishments.   We  having already held

that   appellants   were   borne   on   pensionable   establishment   and

they  were  not  employed  on  contract  basis,  Rule  2  is clearly

applicable on them. There is another category which is excepted

from   application   of   the   rule   ­   Rule   2(e),   i.e.   “persons

entitled to the benefit of a Contributory Provident Fund”.  In

29

the   present   case,   the   appellants   were   not   covered   by   any

Contributory   Provident   Fund   Scheme   rather   covered   by   General

Provident Fund Scheme.   The fact that appellants were covered

by General Provident Fund Scheme is apparent from the materials

brought on record.  In Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (c) No.

24328­29   of   2015­   Annexure   P10   is   a   letter   of   Assistant

Registrar, High Court of Madras dated 17.10.2012 addressed to

the   Principal   District   and   Sessions   Judge,   Tiruvallur,   which

was on the subject “GPF­Final Closure applications of Selvi G.

Savithri,   the   then   Additional   District   and   Sessions   Judge,

Tiruvallur, (FTC III, Tiruvallur)­ Discontinued from service on

25.04.2012­Particulars called for­Regarding.”  It is useful to

extract the aforesaid letter, which is as follows:­

30

“From

Tmt. P. Sandhiya, M.A. B.Ed.,B.L.,

Assistant Registrar (Per. Admn.)

High Court, Madras

To

The   Principal   District   and   Sessions   Judge,

Tiruvallur (w.e)

Sir,

Sub:   GPF­Final   Closure   applications   of   Selvi   G.

Savithri,   the   then   I   Additional   District   and

Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, (FTC III, Tiruvallur)­

Discontinued from service on 25.04.2012­Particulars

called for­Regarding.”

Ref:   Your   letter   D.No.4308/A/2012,   dated

01.10.2012.

I am herewith enclosing a copy of the combined

application and to request you to obtain the same

in   Triplicate   from   Selvi   G.   Savithri,   then   I

Additional District and Sessions Judge Tiruvallur,

now   discontinued   from   service   on   25.04.2012,   for

sanction   of   General   Provident   Fund,   and   the   same

may kindly be forwarded to the High Court, early,

for taking further action in the matter.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/­

Asst. Registrar (Per.Admn.)”

31

37. The General Provident Fund (Tamil Nadu) Rules relates to

all   Government   Servants,   whether   permanent,   temporary   of

officiating other then re­employed servants, who shall join the

Fund.   Learned counsel for the appellants has also brought on

record alongwith additional written submissions, details of pay

drawn by Selvi G. Savithri for the period April, 2011 to April,

2012, which indicate that General Provident Fund subscription

was Rs. 33,000/­ in each month. Rule 3(o) defines ‘qualifying

service’ to the following effect:­

“3(o)   ‘qualifying   service’   means   permanent   or

officiating   service   (including   temporary   service

under   emergency   provisions)   rendered   in   a   post

included in a pensionable establishment.”

38. Rule 11(1) provides for commencement of qualifying service

in following manner

“11.   Commencement   of   qualifying   services.   —  (1)

Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying

service of a Government servant shall commence from

the date he takes charge of the post to which he is

first   appointed   either   substantively   or   in   an

officiating or temporary capacity. In the case of a

Government   servant   retiring  on   or  after  the  first

October   1969,   temporary   or   officiating   service   in

the pensionable  post whether rendered in a regular

capacity or not shall count in full as qualifying

services even if it is not followed by confirmation.

32

NOTE.­ In the case of the employees of the former

Pudukkottai State and persons transferred from the

former   Travancore­Cochin   State  consequent   on   the

reorganisation of States, temporary or officiating

service   rendered   in   a   regular   capacity   under   the

former   Pudukkottai   State   or   the   former

Travancore­Cochin   State   shall   count   in   full   for

purposes of pension.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

11(2) Half of the service paid from contingencies

shall   be   allowed   to   count  towards   qualifying

service   for   pension   along   with   regular   service

subject to the following conditions:­

(i) Service   paid   from   contingencies   shall   be

in   a   job   involving  whole   time   employment

and     not     part­time     for     a   portion   of   the

day.

(ii) Service   paid   from   contingencies   shall   be

in  a type of work or job for which   regular

posts could have been sanctioned, for  example

Chowkidar.

(iii)Service   shall   be   for   which   the   payment   is

made out on monthly or daily rates  computed

and paid on a monthly basis and  which,

though not analogous to the  regular   scale   of

pay, shall bear some  relation in the matter

of pay to those  being     paid   for   similar

jobs  being  performed   by   staff   in   regular

establishments.

(iv) Service   paid   from   contingencies   shall   be

continuous   and  followed   by   absorption   in

regular employment without a break.

(v) Subject   to   the   above   conditions   being

fulfilled,   the   weightage  for   past   service

paid from contingencies shall be limited  to

the period after the 1st January 1961  for  which

authentic records of service may  be available.

(vi) Pension or revised pension admissible as  the

case shall be paid from, the 23rd June,  1988.]

33

11(3) Half of the service rendered by a Government

servant under non­pensionable establishment shall be

counted  for  retirement   benefits  along  with  regular

service under pensionable establishment subject to

the following conditions:­

(i) Service under non­pensionable establishment shall be

in a job involving whole time employment.

(ii) Service under non­pensionable establishment shall be

on time scale of pay and

(iii) Service under non­pensionable establishment shall

be   continuous   and   followed   by   absorption   in

pensionable establishment without a break.

Provided that in respect of those who retired

prior   to   the   14th  February,   1996,   the   retirement

benefit or revised retirement benefit, as the case

may be, admissible to  them shall be paid from the

14th February, 1996 and there shall’ be no claim for

arrears  in any case, for the period up to the 13th

February, 1996.]”

34

39.   As   per   Rule   11(1)   qualifying  service   of   a   Government

servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post

to   which   he   is   first   appointed   either   substantively   or   in   an

officiating   or   temporary   capacity.     The   appellants,   who   were

appointed on ad hoc basis shall be clearly covered by nature of

appointment as contemplated in Rule 11(1). Rules 11(2) and 11(3)

also clearly provided that even half of the service paid from

contingencies  are  allowed  to  count  towards  qualifying  service

and a half of the service rendered by a Government servant under

non­pensionable establishment is counted for retirement benefits

along with regular service with certain conditions.  The Scheme

delineated by Rule 11 indicate a liberal scheme of recognition

of service as pensionable and to accept the submission  of the

respondent  that  ad  hoc  appointment  of the appellants  are not

covered by Rule 11 is to strain the meaning and extent of the

Rule   11.     Rule   21   provides   for   forfeiture   of   service   on

dismissal or removal.

35

40. Chapter V of the Rules deals with “Classes of Pension and

conditions   governing   their   grant”.     Rule   32   deals   with

“Superannuation Pension”. A Superannuation pension is granted to

a Government servant entitled or compelled, by rule, to retire

at a particular age.  Rule 33 deals with Retiring pension, which

provides   that   a   retiring   pension   shall   be   granted   to   a

Government servant who retires, or is retired, in advance of the

age of compulsory retirement, in accordance with the provisions

of Rule 42.  Rule 38(1) deals with Compensation pension.  Rule

38(1) is as follows:­

“38. Compensation   pension:­  (1)   If   a   Government

servant   is   selected   for  discharge   owing   to   the

abolition of his permanent post, he shall, unless

he is  appointed to another post, the conditions of

which   are   deemed   by   the   authority  competent   to

discharge him to be at least equal to those of his

own, have the option ­

(a) of taking compensation pension to which he may he

entitled for the service he had rendered, or

(b) of accepting another appointment on such pay as may

be  offered   and   continuing   to   count   his   previous

service for pension.”

36

41. Rule   39   deals   with   Compulsory   retirement   pension.

Sub­rule(1)   of   Rule   39   provides   that   a   Government   servant

compulsorily retired from service as a penalty may be granted by

the   authority   competent   to   impose   such   penalty,   pension   or

gratuity, or both at a rate not less than two­thirds and not

more   than   full   compensation   pension   or   gratuity   or   both

admissible   to   him   on   the   date   of   his   compulsory   retirement.

Rule 40 contemplates that a Government servant who is dismissed

or removed from service although shall forfeit his pension and

gratuity but the authority competent to dismiss or remove him

from   service   may,   if   the   case   is   deserving   of   special

consideration, sanction a compassionate allowance not exceeding

two­thirds of pension or gratuity or both which would have been

admissible to him if he had retired on medical certificate. The

scheme as delineated by Chapter V of the Rules indicate that

rules framing authorities have adopted a liberal and flexible

approach   in   sanctioning   the   pension.     Even   the   Government

servant, who is dismissed or removed, is also given a window to

get compassionate allowance, if the case is deserving a special

consideration.  A Government servant, who retires voluntarily or

is compulsorily retired, is entitled to a retiring pension by

virtue of Rule 42(1), which is as follows:­

37

“42(1).     A   Government   servant,   who,   under

Fundamental   Rule   56(d),   retires   voluntarily   or   is

required  by  the  appointing  authority  to  retire   in

the public interest shall be entitled to a retiring

pension.”

42. Rule 43(1) deals with amount of pension, which is to the

following effect:­

“43(1) In the case of a Government servant retiring

in   accordance   with   the   provisions   of   these   rules

before completing qualifying service of ten years,

the amount of service gratuity shall be calculated

at the uniform rate of half­month’s emoluments for

every completed six monthly period of service.”

43.     Rule   43(2)   provides   that   in   the   case   of   a   Government

servant,   retiring   in   accordance   with   the   provisions   of   these

rules after completing qualifying service of not less than ten

years,   the   amount   of   pension   shall   be   as   set   out   in   the

sub­rule(2).   Thus, the  qualifying service  not less than  ten

years  is a condition for grant of pension.   At this juncture,

let us revert back to the facts of the present case to find out

as to whether all the appellants have completed ten years of

qualifying service?  From the record before us, following is the

service rendered by the appellants as Additional District Judge

(Fast Track Court):­

38

Sl.

No.

Name  Date of

Joining

Date of

Relieving

Total Period

1. K. AnbazhaganAppellant

No.1

13.02.2002 31.05.2011 09 Years 05

Months and 05

Days

2. Selvi G.

SavithriAppellant

No.2

24.02.2002 25.04.2012 10 Years 02

Months and 02

Days

3. R. Radha ­

Appellant No.3

23.02.2002 25.04.2012 10 Years 02

Months and 03

Days

4. A.S. Hassina –

Appellant No.4

23.02.2002 25.04.2012 10 Years 02

Months and 03

Days

5. P.G. Rajagopal

Appellant No.5

24.02.2002 31.10.2010 08 Years 08

Months and 08

Days

From the above, it is clear that apart form K. Anbazhagan

and P.G. Rajagopal, other three appellants have completed ten

years of qualifying service.

39

44. Now, we have to find out as to whether as per Rules, K.

Anbazhagan and P.G. Rajagopal are entitled to add any service

for the purpose of completing qualifying service. Rule 27 of the

Rules   is   a   clear   answer   to   the   aforesaid   issue.     Both   K.

Anbazhagan and P.G. Rajagopal were relieved on A/N of 31.05.2011

and   31.10.2010   respectively,   on   attaining   the   age   of   sixty

years.     Rule   27   provides   for   addition   in   their   service

qualifying   for   Superannuation   pension,   the   actual   period   not

exceeding one­fourth of the length of service or actual period

by which his age at the time of recruitment exceeds thirty years

or a period of five years, whichever is less.  Rule 27(1) which

is relevant for the present case is as follows:­

“27(1)   Any  person appointed to a service or post

and   who   retires   from   service   on   or   after   the   1′

July   1960   may   add   to   his   service   qualifying   for

superannuation pension (but not for any other class

of   pension)   the   actual   period   not   exceeding   one

fourth of the length of  his service or the actual

period by which his age at the time of recruitment

exceeds   thirty   years   or   a   period   of   five   years,

whichever is less, if the service or post is one­

(a)     for   which   post­graduate   research   or

specialist qualification  or experience in

scientific, technological or professional

fields   is   prescribed   not   merely   as

desirable but as obligatory  qualification;

and

(b)     for   which   the   age   of   recruitment

prescribed in the service rules applicable

to the service or post concerned is above

thirty years.

40

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”

45. Rule 27(1) proviso specifically mentions that the age limit

prescribed   in   sub­rule(!)   above   viz.   thirty   years   shall   be

lowered to twenty seven years in so far as Judicial Officers who

are   directly   recruited   as   Magistrates,   District   Munsifs   and

District   Judges.     The   appellants   are   clearly   covered   by   the

proviso to sub­rule(1) of Rule 27. As per Rule 27(1), out of

three periods mentioned therein, whichever is lesser, has to be

accepted. To the actual service,   the period of one­fourth of

the length of the service of the above appellants is a lessor

period, which needs to be added in their service.  By addition

of one­fourth period of the actual service of  K.Anbazhagan and

P.G. Rajagopal, their qualifying service become more than ten

years.   The above appellants also thus have qualifying service

of more than ten years, we thus conclude that all the appellants

before   us   have   qualifying   service   of   more   than   ten   years.

Another relevant rule, which needs to be looked into is Rule 78.

Rule   78   provides   for   the   date   from   which   pension   becomes

payable.  Rule 78(1) is as follows:­

41

“78(1) Except in the case of a Government servant to

whom the provision of rule 34 apply and subject to

the provisions of rule 9, 60 and 69 a pension other

than  family  pension  shall  become  payable   from  the

date   on   which   a   Government   servant   ceases   to   be

borne on the establishment.”

42

46. The crucial words in Rule 78 are “shall become payable from

the date on which a Government servant ceases to be borne on the

establishment.”  In the present cases, dates on which appellants

were relieved is the date from which they cease to be borne on

the   establishment.     Two   appellants   K.Anbazhagan   and   P.G.

Rajagopal  were  relieved on  account  of  attaining age of  sixty

years   hence   they   were   clearly   entitled   for   superannuation

pension.  Other three appellants were relieved by the High Court

due to the reasons that Fast Track Courts came to an end by

converting   the   Fast   Track   Courts   into   Permanent   Courts   of

Additional District Judge by Government order dated 26.08.2011.

49 Fast Track Courts, which were created under Eleventh Finance

Commission   were   retained   on   permanent   basis   as   the   post   of

District Judge/Additional District Judge.   The central funding

for Fast Track Courts was ceased on 31.03.2011 but the State of

Tamil Nadu has allowed to continue the said Courts for one more

year   w.e.f.   01.04.2011,   i.e.   upto   31.03.2012.     The   State

Government   has   continued   the   post   till   01.04.2012.     49   Fast

Track Courts become the Permanent Courts of Additional District

Judges.   The relieving of other three appellants on 25.04.2012

was   on   the   ground   that   since   Fast   Track   Courts   have   been

discontinued, A.S. Hassina, R. Radha and Selvi G. Savithri are

relieved   from   their   services.     Rule   38   provides   for   a

43

compensation pension. The discontinuance of the posts held by

the above three appellants, w.e.f. 01.04.2012 and consequently

relieving of the aforesaid appellants,  we are of the view that

above   three   appellants   are   also   entitled   for   compensation

pension.     We,   thus,   conclude   that   K.   Anbazhagan   and   P.G.

Rajagopal   are   entitled   for   superannuation   pension   and   other

three   appellants   namely   A.S.   Hassina,   R.   Radha   and   Selvi   G.

Savithri are entitled for compensation pension.  High Court fell

in error in rejecting their claim of pension.

47. With   regard   to   compensation   pension   as   contemplated   by

Rule   38   there   can   be   one   aspect   which   also   needs   to   be

considered. Rule 38 sub­rule (1) contemplates discharge owing

to the abolition of his permanent post. It may be contended

that Fast Track Courts as per order dated 18.12.2001 were not

the permanent posts and initially Fast Track Court Scheme was

only for five years which subsequently got extended to another

five   years   and   one   year.   The   discontinuance   of   Fast   Track

Court cannot be treated as permanent abolition of post. The

present case  is a  case  where  the  appellants had allowed to

work   for   10   years   and   the   post   of     Fast   Track   Court

(Additional   District   Court)   held   by   the   appellants   was

discontinued with effect from 01.04.2012.   It cannot be said

that   relieving   of   the   appellants   was   due   to   abolition   of

44

permanent post but the basis for allowing compensation pension

in the circumstances as mentioned in sub­rule (1) of Rule 38

can be said to be very much present in the present case. The

appellants who worked for 10 years and were discontinued due

to   discontinuation   of   posts   which   were   held   by   them,   the

equity   and   justice   demands   that   they   should   also   be   given

compensation   pension.   Thus,   in   the   present   case   even   if

technically abolition of permanent post may not be involved

but   for   doing   complete   justice,   direction   for   giving

compensation pension to the appellants is just and proper.

48. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has also placed

reliance   on   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in  Mahesh   Chandra

Verma   Vs.   The   State   of   Jharkhand   and   ors.,   2018   (7)   Scale

343.  The   question   which   arose   in   the   aforesaid   appeals   for

consideration   has   been   noted   in   the   paragraph   1   of   the

judgment which is to the following effect:

“1. The   sole   question,   which   arises   for

consideration   in   these   appeals   is   whether   the

services   rendered   by   the   appellants/Judicial

Officers as Fast Track Court Judges is liable to

be   counted   for   their   pensionary   and   other

benefits, the appellants having joined the regular

judicial service thereafter.”

49. The   appellants   in   the   aforesaid   case   were   directly

45

recruited from the Bar as Fast Track Court Judges. This Court

in paragraphs 15, 17 and 18 has held the following:

“15. The appellants were not appointed to the Fast

Track   courts   just   at   the   whim   and   fancy   of   any

person, but were the next in line on the merit list

of a judicial recruitment process. They were either

part of the select list, who could not find a place

given the cadre strength, or those next in line in

the   select   list.   Had   there   been   adequate   cadre

strength,   the   recruitment   process   would   have

resulted in their appointment. We do believe that

these Judges have rendered services over a period

of   nine   years   and   have   performed   their   role   as

Judges   to   the   satisfaction,   otherwise   there   would

have been no occasion for their appointment to the

regular   cadre   strength.   Not   only   that,   they   also

went through a second process for such recruitment.

We believe that it is a matter of great regret that

these   appellants   who   have   performed   the   functions

of   a   Judge   to   the   satisfaction   of   the   competent

authorities should be deprived of their pension and

retiral   benefits   for   this   period   of   service.   The

appellants were not pressing before us any case of

seniority   over   any   person   who   may   have   been

recruited subsequently, nor for any other benefit.

In   fact,   we   had   made   it   clear   to   the   appellants

that we are only examining the issue of giving the

benefits of their service in the capacity of Fast

Track   court   Judges   to   be   counted   towards   their

length   of   service   for   pensionary   and   retiral

benefits.   To   deny   the   same   would   be   unjust   and

unfair to the appellants. In any case, keeping in

mind   the   spirit   of   the   directions   made   Under

Article   142   of   the   Constitution   of   India   in   Brij

Mohan   Lal­[II]   and   in   Mahesh   Chandra   Verma,   the

necessary   corollary   must   also   follow,   of   giving

benefit   of   the   period   of   service   in   Fast   Track

courts for their pension and retiral benefits. The

methodology   of   non­creation   of   adequate   regular

cadre   posts   and   the   consequent   establishment   of

Fast Track courts manned by the appellants cannot

be   used   as   a   ruse   to   deny   the   dues   of   the

appellants.

46

17. The position in respect of the appellants is

really no different on the principle enunciated, as

there was need for a regular cadre strength keeping

in mind the inflow and pendency of cases. The Fast

Track Court Scheme was brought in to deal with the

exigency and the appellants were appointed to the

Fast Track courts and continued to work for almost

a   decade.   They   were   part   of   the   initial   select

list/merit   list   for   recruitment   to   the   regular

cadre   strength   but   were   not   high   enough   to   be

recruited   in   the   existing   strength.   Even   at   the

stage of absorption in the regular cadre strength,

they   had   to   go   through   a   defined   process   in

pursuance of the judgment of this Court and have

continued to work thereafter.

18. We are, thus, unhesitatingly and unequivocally

of the view that all the appellants and Judicial

Officers identically situated are entitled to the

benefit of the period of service rendered as Fast

Track court Judges to be counted for their length

of service in determination of their pension and

retiral benefits.”

50. Although in the above case of Mahesh Chandra, Fast Track

Court   Judges   were   ultimately   absorbed   in   the   regular   cadre

strength but the fact that period of services as Fast Track

Court   Judges   had   been   directed   to   be   added   for   their

pensionary benefits, does support the claim of the appellants

in the present case.

51. Another   judgment   on   which   reliance   was   placed   by   the

appellants is a judgment of this Court in    Government of NCT

of Delhi and others Vs. All India Young Lawyers Association

(Registered)   and   another,   (2009)   14   SCC   49.  Learned   counsel

47

submits   that   this   Court   in   the   above   case   had   directed   for

addition   of   10   years   or   actual   period   of   judicial   service,

whichever   is   less,   as   qualifying   service   to   the   direct

recruits to Delhi Higher Judicial Service. In the above case

direct   recruits   to   the   Delhi   Higher   Judicial   Service   were

under   25%   quota.   The   appellants   were   regularly   recruited   in

Delhi Higher Judicial Service in accordance with Delhi Higher

Judicial Service Rules, 1970. Direct recruits had filed writ

petition before the High Court of Delhi seeking a mandamus to

the appellants that the actual period of practice at the Bar

subject to a maximum of fifteen years, should be added to the

total   pensionable   service   while   computing   the   pension.   The

High Court allowed the writ petition while giving weightage of

15 years of practice or such other number of years of practice

at the Bar, whichever is less. The Government of NCT of Delhi

filed   an   appeal.   It   has   been   noted   by   this   Court   in   the

aforesaid judgment that the High Court after taking decision

on the Administrative side wrote to the Delhi Government and

it   was   only   on   02.02.2006   by   a   letter,   the   Government   has

indicated   that   it   was   agreeable   to   give   weightage   of   seven

years of practice. The above fact is noted in paragraphs 6 and

7 which is to the following effect:

“6.  The   High   Court,   on   the   administrative   side,

brought this fact to the notice of the Government

48

by   writing   a   letter   in   the   year   1987.   Though

repeated reminders were sent to the Government, no

decision was taken by the Government till the end

of   2005   and   only   on   2­2­2006   by   a   letter,   the

Government has indicated that it was agreeable to

give weightage of seven years of practice at the

Bar while computing the pension and other retiral

benefits for direct recruits.

7.  Learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   State

contended that the reason why the Government has

agreed to give weightage of seven years’ practice

at the Bar is that because in the case of direct

recruitments to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service,

a member should have seven years’ practice at the

Bar and that is why the Government thought it fit

to give weightage of seven years.”

52. This Court while allowing the appeal partly, directed the

Government of NCT to give weightage of ten years of practice

at   the   Bar   or   such   number   of   years   of   actual   service,

whichever is less. The above case is distinguishable due to

two   reasons.   Firstly,   the   direct   recruits   were   Advocates

appointed   in   accordance   with   Delhi   Higher   Judicial   Service

Rules,   1970.   Secondly,   the   Government   of   NCT   of   Delhi   has

agreed for giving weightage of seven years in their service

period. It was the concession given by the Government of NCT

of   Delhi   which   was   relied   by   this   Court   while   issuing

direction. Thus, benefit of the above case is not available to

the appellants in the present case.

53. Now   we   come   to   the   entitlement   of   gratuity   by   the

49

appellants. The definition of pension as given under Rule 3(m)

provides as follows:

“3(m) ‘pension’ includes gratuity except when the

term   pension   is   used   in   contradistinction   to

gratuity but does not include dearness allowance.”

54. When   the   appellants   are   entitled   for   grant   of   pension,

they are obviously entitled for grant of gratuity. Rule 45 of

the   1978   Rules   provided   that   a   Government   servant,   who   has

completed   five   years’   qualifying   service   and   has   become

eligible for service gratuity or pension under Rule 43, shall

be granted gratuity. Rule 45 sub­rule (1)(a) is as follows:

“45.   Death­cum­Retirement   Gratuity.­(1)(a)A

Government servant, who has completed five years’

qualifying   service   and   has   become   eligible   for

service gratuity or pension under rule 43, shall,

on his retirement be granted death­ cum ­retirement

gratuity as in the table below for each completed

six monthly period of qualifying service, subject

to a maximum of fifteen times, the emoluments:­”

55. We,   thus,   are   of   the   view   that   appellants   are   also

entitled for gratuity which may be computed in accordance with

1978 Rules.

56. Now remains the issue of leave encashment. The Tamil Nadu

Leave   Rules,   1933   govern   all   aspects   of   the   leave.   Rule   7

deals with leave at the credit of a Government servant. Rule 7

50

also   provides   in   respect   of   the   benefit   of   encashment   of

earned leave at the credit of a Government servant. Rule 7(i)

and (ii) are as follows:

“7.(i) Leave   at   the   credit   of   a   Government

servant   in   his   leave   account,   other   than   earned

leave and leave on private affairs shall lapse on

the   date   of   retirement   or   on   the   date   of

termination   of   the   extension   of   service,   as   the

case   may   be.     The   competent   authority   (leave

sanctioning   authority)   shall  suo   motu  draw   and

disburse the cash benefits of encashment of earned

leave and leave on private affairs at the credit

of  the Government servants in Groups  B, C and D

without   formal   sanction   orders   on   the   date   of

retirement   or   on   the   date   of   termination   of

extension of  service, as  the case may be, or on

the   next   working   day,   following   the   date   of

retirement or the date of termination of extension

of service, if the date of retirement or the date

of termination of extension of service happens to

be a holiday. In respect of Group A Officers, the

Accountant General or Pay and Accounts Officer, as

the   case   may   be,   shall,  suo   motu  issue   the   pay

slips for encashment of earned leave and leave on

private   affairs,   as   aforesaid,   at   the   credit   of

the   Government   servants   without   formal   sanction

orders, on the date of retirement or on the date

of   termination   of   extension   of   service,   as   the

case may be, or on the next working day, following

the date of retirement or the date of termination

of extension of service if the date of retirement

or the date of termination of extension of service

happens to be a holiday.

(ii) The benefit of encashment of earned leave at

the credit of a Government servant on the date of

retirement   or   on   the   date   of   termination   of

extension of service, as the case may be, shall be

subject   to   a   maximum   of   240   days   and   shall   be

eligible for cash equivalent of full leave salary

which shall be based on Pay, Dearness Allowance,

House   Rent   Allowance   and   City   Compensatory

Allowance   for   the   entire   period   of   leave   at

51

credit.”

57. The   appellants   claimed   earned   leave   to   their   credit   on

the   date   when   they   retired/relieved.   The   appellants   were

clearly entitled for encashment of leave subject to a maximum

of 240 days.

58. In   view   of   the   foregoing   discussions,   we   allow   these

appeals in the following manner:

(1) The judgment of the High Court dated 01.04.2015 is set

aside   and   the   Civil   Appeals   filed   by   the   appellants   are

allowed.

(2) The   respondents   are   directed   to   sanction   superannuation

pension   to   appellants   K.   Anbazhagan   and   P.G.   Rajagopal   in

accordance with 1978 Rules.  

(3) The   respondents   are   directed   to   sanction   compensation

pension to the appellants, namely, Selvi G. Savithri, R. Radha

and A.S. Hassina.

(4) All the appellants are entitled for payment of gratuity

in accordance with 1978 Rules.

(5) The respondents are also directed to permit encashment of

earned   leave   to   the   credit   of   the   appellants   subject   to   a

maximum of 240 days.

52

(6) All above retiral benefits be computed and paid to the

appellants within a period of two months from today. In the

event payments are made after two months, the appellants shall

be entitled for such payments alongwith the simple interest @

7% per annum.

(7) The parties shall bear their own costs.

……………………..J.

( A.K. SIKRI )

……………………..J.

( ASHOK BHUSHAN )

NEW DELHI,

AUGUST 13,2018.