Summary
Former ad hoc Fast Track Court district judges could not claim regular-cadre seniority from their initial appointments. Those appointments were outside the regular cadre under separate rules, and similarity in selection procedure did not confer cadre rights. The Court nevertheless directed that Fast Track Court service be counted for pension and other retirement benefits for the appellants and all similarly situated officers.
Issues
- Whether ad hoc Fast Track Court service counted towards seniority following selection to regular district-judge posts.
- Whether that service should nevertheless count for pension and other retirement benefits.
Held
- Fast Track Court appointments were made under separate rules and were not appointments to regular-cadre vacancies. A similar selection process could not confer seniority over officers appointed to substantive cadre posts. (¶ 11–15)
- The prior claim for absorption and challenge to regular recruitment had failed. After accepting later regular appointments on rule-conforming terms and completing probation, the appellants could not challenge those conditions to obtain retrospective seniority. (¶ 11–13)
- The claim also failed because officers whose regular-cadre seniority would be affected had not been impleaded. (¶ 13)
- For pension and other retirement benefits, the Court adopted the view that Fast Track Court service should count towards length of service. This relief extended to the appellants and all others similarly situated, while seniority and other reliefs were rejected. (¶ 16–17)
Result
Appeals disposed of without costs. Retrospective seniority and other reliefs rejected; Fast Track Court service directed to count for pensionary and other retiral benefits for appellants and similarly placed officers.