K. ANBAZHAGAN & ANR. versus THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF MADRAS & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 10 S.C.R. 810 · Decided: 13-08-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
810
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
K. ANBAZHAGAN & ANR.
v.
THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8216-17 of 2018)
AUGUST 13, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Service law – Judicial Service – Ad-hoc appointees, if entitled
to pension and other retiral benefits – Appellants appointed as
Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Courts) from
the Bar on ad-hoc basis – They were eventually relieved – Writ
petitions filed by appellants for grant of pension and other retiral
benefits, dismissed – Held: Appellants were appointed in the Judicial
establishment of the district and were part of the Subordinate Courts
under the control of the High Court – 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 that the appellants were appointed on
any different establishment than the Judicial establishment of the
District – Appointment of appellants was in ‘pensionable
establishment’ – Notification inviting applications never mentioned
that it was a contractual appointment – 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– In service
jurisprudence there is distinction between ad-hoc appointment and
contract appointment, and both the expressions cannot be used
interchangeably – In view of the fact that the advertisement limited
the appointment for a period of five years only, the appointment of
the appellants at best can be said as “Tenure appointment”– All the
appellants have qualifying service of more than ten years as required
for grant of pension – High Court fell in error in rejecting their claim
of pension – Further, appellants are also entitled for gratuity which may be
computed in accordance with 1978 Rules – Appellants were also
entitled for encashment of leave subject to a maximum of 240 days -
Judgment of the High Court set aside – Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 –
rr.2, 3, 11, 21, 42, 43, 45 and 78 – Tamil Nadu Leave Rules, 1933 – r.7.
810
[2018] 10 S.C.R. 810
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
811
Service law – Judicial Service – Appointments – Contractual,
Ad-hoc and Tenure Appointments – Explained – Fundamental Rules
of the Tamil Nadu Government – Fundamental Rule 9(30-A).
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1  The Eleventh Finance Commission allocated
funds for the purpose of setting up of 1734 Fast Track Courts in
various States to deal 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.  Fast Track Courts
scheme was challenged. The issues pertaining to Fast Track
Courts were decided by Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Lal case
wherein various directions were issued in Para 10. In Direction
No. 16, Supreme 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.  [Paras 16, 17]
[820-G-H; 821-A, B; 822-D-E]
1.2  The appointments of the appellants were made against
nineteen sanctioned posts of Additional District Judges by
Government Order dated 18.12.2001. The appellants in their
appointment Order dated 14.02.2002 were referred to as having
been appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judges (Fast
Track Courts) on ad-hoc basis. The appointment order further
provided that the appellants as Additional District and Sessions
Judges will draw a pay in the scale of Rs.15000-400-18600 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. 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 that the appellants were appointed
on any different establishment than the Judicial establishment of
the District. The appointment of appellants was in ‘pensionable
establishment’. The notification inviting applications never
mentioned that it is a contractual appointment. The appointment
order thus clear

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.