Summary
Five advocates appointed as ad hoc Fast Track Court judges challenged denial of retirement benefits. The Supreme Court held their appointments were in a pensionable judicial establishment and were not contractual. It awarded superannuation pension to two judges, compensation pension to three in the circumstances, and gratuity and earned-leave encashment to all five.
Issues
- Whether the judges’ ad hoc appointments were excluded from the pension rules as contractual or non-pensionable employment.
- Whether qualifying service and the circumstances of discontinuance supported pension and other retirement benefits.
Provisions considered
- Rules 2, 3(o) and 11(1), Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978The judges served in a pensionable establishment on ad hoc appointments; their service qualified notwithstanding absence of confirmation or regular absorption. (¶¶ 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39)
- Rule 27(1), including its judicial-officer proviso, Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978Addition of one-fourth of actual service, the least applicable period, brought the two superannuating judges above ten years of qualifying service. (¶¶ 44, 45)
- Rule 38(1), Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978Compensation pension was directed for the three discontinued judges to do complete justice, though technical abolition of permanent posts was not involved. (¶¶ 40, 46, 47)
- Rules 3(m), 45(1)(a) and 78(1), Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978Pension entitlement supported gratuity under the rules, with pension payable from cessation on the establishment. (¶¶ 45, 46, 53, 54, 55)
- Rule 7(i) and (ii), Tamil Nadu Leave Rules, 1933Earned leave standing to the judges’ credit was encashable subject to the specified maximum of 240 days. (¶¶ 56, 57, 58)
Held
- The sanctioned posts, pay scales, funding and judicial-establishment placement showed pensionable service. A fixed initial five-year term did not convert expressly ad hoc appointments into contracts. Earlier rejection of regular absorption did not decide pension entitlement under the relevant rules. (¶¶ 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 39)
- Three judges had already completed ten years. K. Anbazhagan and P.G. Rajagopal qualified after the Rule 27 service addition and were entitled to superannuation pension. The other three were granted compensation pension on equitable and complete-justice grounds following discontinuance of their posts, despite the permanent-post limitation in Rule 38. (¶¶ 43, 44, 45, 46, 47)
- All five were entitled to gratuity under the pension rules and encashment of earned leave at credit up to 240 days. Benefits were to be computed and paid within two months; payments made thereafter would carry simple interest at seven per cent per annum. (¶¶ 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58)
Result
Appeals allowed and the High Court judgment set aside. Specified pensions, gratuity and earned-leave encashment directed within two months, with seven per cent simple interest on delayed payments. Parties to bear their own costs.