MAHESH CHANDRA VERMA versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH: ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 5 S.C.R. 719 · Decided: 11-05-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
719
MAHESH CHANDRA VERMA
v.
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
Through: ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.4782 of 2018)
    MAY 11, 2018
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]
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
   [2018] 5 S.C.R. 719
719
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
720
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
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]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
721
4.  All the appellants and Judicial Offi

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