The Apex Court acts as a flag bearer of justice by granting pension, gratuity and other benefits to the Fast Track Judges appointed on ad hoc basis
The Supreme Court quashed the common judgment passed by the Madras High Court by allowing the appeals which was filed by five appellants in the case of K. Anbazhagan & Anr v The Registrar General High Court of Madras & Anr with R.Radha & Anr State of Tamil Nadu & Ors with P..Rajagopal v The Registrar General High Court at Madras & Anr.
The appellants had been appointed as Fast Track Judges on ad hoc basis in the State of Tamil Nadu by the virtue of Fast Track Court being created under the 11th Finance Commission Report for an initial term of five years which was later on extended followed by various others as per the order issued by the Madras High Court.
However, after facing relief from the concerned assignments , the appellants had filed various writ petitions which faced rejection in the High Court with regard to absorbing as Additional District as well as Session Judge. Representation were filed to grant pensions and other benefits pertaining to retirement, leave for encashment ,gratuity which had also faced blatant rejection in the hands of the High Court.
The issues addressed were whether the appellants’ appointed were entitled to a ‘pensionable establishment’ or not? The Apex Court held that the appellants service’s terms and conditions were on similar lines with that of the other judicial officers thus entitling them to pensionable establishment. The second issue was pertaining to the appellants appointment being of a contractual basis or not? It was observed that the order of appointment was of an ad hoc basis rather than a contractual basis that generally do not consist of a post or a pay scale which in the instant case consisted of specific pay scale. The other issues revolving around was whether the appellants were entitled to pension, encashment of leave and gratuity? The Court observed the issue as per the Tamil Nadu Pensions Rules Act 1978, which mentions about the completion of ten years tenure to be entitled to pension benefits .Considering the facts of the case, the Court held that the appellants were entitled to the pension and other associated claims.
The Supreme Court opined that the post cannot be abolished on a permanent basis merely the Fast Track Court had been discontinued especially keeping in mind that the appellants had devoted ten years of service to the post and also being a part of the merit list initially they ought to be compensated in a just and fair manner otherwise that would lead to miscarriage of justice against the appellants.
The appeals were allowed and appellants were held entitled to pension,gratuity as per the rules of 1978 and other benefits of retirement within sixty days from the date of order followed by encashment of leave for 240 days .
