2018 INSC 0523
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   2 3.02.2002   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   complian ce   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 to­
a)   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 1 st
 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 23r d
 June,  1988.]

33
11(3) Half of the service rendered by a Government
servant under non­ pensionable 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   14 th
  February,   1996,   the   retirement
benefit   or   revised   retirement   benefit,   as   the   case
may   be,   admissible   to   them   shall   be   paid   from   the
14 th
  February, 1996 and there shall' be no claim for
arrears   in   any   case,   for   the   period   up   to   the   13 th
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. Anbazhagan­
Appellant No.1 13.02.2002 31.05.2011 09 Years 05 
Months and 05 
Days
2. Selvi G. 
Savithri­
Appellant 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:­
“2 7 (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   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:­”
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.