Summary
The Supreme Court held that the appellants and identically situated judicial officers were entitled to count their Fast Track Court service towards pension and retiral benefits after absorption into Jharkhand’s regular judicial cadre. They had been appointed through a merit-based process, served for nearly a decade and passed the prescribed absorption process. Earlier Supreme Court directions contained no prohibition on this credit. The ruling was confined to pensionary service credit; seniority and other benefits were not pressed or examined.
Issues
- Whether prior service as Fast Track Court Judges should count towards pension and retiral benefits after regular judicial appointment.
- Whether the absence of express relief in earlier Supreme Court directions barred granting that service credit.
Held
- The earlier directions prescribing absorption into regular service did not prohibit pensionary credit for Fast Track Court service. Their silence could not justify treating the officers as fresh entrants for this limited purpose. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15)
- The officers’ merit-based initial appointments, satisfactory judicial service over about nine years and subsequent qualifying absorption process distinguished their service from arbitrary temporary engagement. Inadequate creation of regular posts could not be used to deny its recognition for retirement benefits. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17)
- All appellants and judicial officers identically situated were entitled to count their Fast Track Court service as length of service for pension and retiral benefits. (¶ 18)
- The Court confined examination to pensionary and retiral service credit. No claim to seniority over later recruits or other benefits was pressed or adjudicated. (¶ 15)
Result
Appeals allowed; parties to bear their own costs. Appellants and identically situated judicial officers entitled to count Fast Track Court service towards pension and retiral benefits.