Judiciary: Pension – Whether services rendered by the appellants as Fast Track Courts Judges to be counted for their pensionary and other benefits, the appellants having joined the regular judicial service thereafter – Held: The appellants 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 went through a defined process and continued to work thereafter – Thus, they 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 – 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 – The methodology of non-creation 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 – 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.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The need to set up Fast Track Courts arose on account of delays in the judicial process, targeting certain priority areas for quicker adjudication. In fact, had there been adequate cadre strength, there would have been no need to set up these Fast Track Courts. [Para 14] [727-H; 728-A]
2. 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. 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. 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. 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 non-creation 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. [Para 15] [728-B-F]
3. 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. [Para 17] [729-F-G]
4. 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. [Para 18] [729-H; 730-A]
Mahesh Chandra Verma v. State of Jharkhand
(2012) 11 SCC 656 : [2012] 9 SCR 6 ; Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India - [II] (2012) 6 SCC 502 : [2012] 5 SCR 305 ; Nihal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2013) 14 SCC 65 : [2013] 11 SCR 1 – relied on.
Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India & Ors. - [1] (2002) 5 SCC 1 : [2002] 3 SCR 810 ; Srikant Roy v. State of Jharkhand (2017) 1 SCC 457 : [2016] 11 SCR 58 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.