Supreme Court rules Fast Track Court service counts towards pension benefits in Judicial Service: Mahesh Chandra Verma vs. State of Jharkhand (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 11, 2018
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: J. Chelameswar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ. (authored by Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.)

Can prior service as a Fast Track Court Judge be considered when calculating pension and retirement benefits after being appointed to the regular judicial service? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question, impacting numerous judicial officers. This judgment clarifies that service in Fast Track Courts will indeed be counted towards pensionary benefits, providing relief to many judicial officers who were previously denied these benefits. The bench consisted of Justices J. Chelameswar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, with the judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.

Case Background

The State of Jharkhand was formed on November 25, 2000, after being carved out of Bihar. Shortly after, on May 23, 2001, the Jharkhand High Court advertised vacancies for Additional District Judges in the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service. The appellants participated in this recruitment process. While a select list of 27 candidates was prepared, none of the appellants were included. Simultaneously, the 11th Finance Commission allocated funds for establishing Fast Track Courts to handle long-pending cases. The State of Jharkhand established more than 80 Fast Track Courts at the level of Additional District Judges on November 29, 2001. To fill these posts, the State decided to accommodate candidates from the earlier select list who could not be placed in the regular cadre. The first 17 candidates were appointed to the regular cadre on December 15, 2001, while the remaining 10 were appointed to Fast Track Courts on February 2, 2002. Additionally, 15 more candidates from the Bar were appointed to Fast Track Courts on September 23, 2002, based on merit.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

A new selection process for 34 posts of Additional District Judges was initiated in 2008, leading to a legal battle between those in Fast Track Courts and those who would benefit from the new examination. The Jharkhand High Court initially ruled against the new selection process, but this decision was overturned by the Supreme Court in Srikant Roy v. State of Jharkhand. The issue of what to do with Fast Track Court Judges after the central funding stopped was addressed in Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India – [II], which directed that Fast Track Court Judges could be absorbed into the regular cadre after passing a written exam and interview. This was further affirmed in Mahesh Chandra Verma v. State of Jharkhand, which directed the State of Jharkhand to comply with the directions in Brij Mohan Lal – [II]. Following these judgments, the appellants were appointed to the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service but were treated as fresh recruits.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in previous cases, particularly Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India and Mahesh Chandra Verma v. State of Jharkhand. The court also refers to Article 275 of the Constitution of India, which pertains to grants from the Union to certain States. The judgment also refers to Section 17 of the Police Act, 1861, which deals with the appointment of Special Police Officers. The core issue is whether the service rendered by the appellants as Fast Track Court Judges should be counted towards their pension and retiral benefits after their absorption into the regular judicial service. The court also takes into account the Contributory Pension Scheme introduced on or after 1.12.2004.

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellants:

• The appellants argued that they were initially part of the merit list for judicial recruitment and were appointed to Fast Track Courts due to a lack of adequate cadre strength in the regular judicial service.
• They contended that they performed their duties as judges satisfactorily for about nine years and were later absorbed into the regular cadre after a second selection process.
• They asserted that denying them the benefit of their service in Fast Track Courts for pension and retiral benefits would be unjust and unfair.
• They were not claiming seniority over subsequently recruited individuals but only sought their past service to be counted towards pension and retiral benefits.

Arguments of the State Government:

• The State Government argued that Fast Track Courts were temporary by nature, and those appointed were aware of their limited tenure.
• They stated that the funding for Fast Track Courts from the Central Government had stopped, and the State’s continuation of these courts did not grant the appellants any right to claim benefits for their past service.
• The State emphasized that the Supreme Court had used Article 142 of the Constitution of India to issue directions and that the High Court could not grant anything not explicitly granted by the Supreme Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The sole issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the services rendered by the appellants/Judicial Officers as Fast Track Court Judges are liable to be counted for their pensionary and other benefits, the appellants having joined the regular judicial service thereafter.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India [(2002) 5 SCC 1]:* The Court followed the directions given in this case, which initially upheld the constitution of Fast Track Courts.
• Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India – [II] [(2012) 6 SCC 502]:* The Court relied on this judgment, which provided directions for the absorption of Fast Track Court judges into the regular cadre.
• Srikant Roy v. State of Jharkhand [(2017) 1 SCC 457]:* The Court referred to this case, which set aside the Jharkhand High Court’s judgment against the selection process.
• Mahesh Chandra Verma v. State of Jharkhand [(2012) 11 SCC 656]:* The Court followed this judgment, which directed the State of Jharkhand to comply with the directions in Brij Mohan Lal – [II].
• Nihal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2013) 14 SCC 65]:* The Court followed the principle laid down in this case, stating that the State cannot deny benefits to those who have worked for long years due to the failure to create a regular cadre.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The appellants were initially part of the merit list for judicial recruitment and were appointed to Fast Track Courts due to a lack of adequate cadre strength in the regular judicial service.
• The appellants had performed their duties as judges satisfactorily for about nine years and were later absorbed into the regular cadre after a second selection process.
• The denial of pension and retiral benefits for their service in Fast Track Courts would be unjust and unfair.
• The need for Fast Track Courts arose due to the inadequacy of the regular judicial cadre, and the appellants should not be penalized for this.
• The spirit of the directions made under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in Brij Mohan Lal – [II] and Mahesh Chandra Verma required that the benefit of service in Fast Track Courts be given for pension and retiral benefits.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the State’s argument that Fast Track Courts were temporary, stating that the need for these courts arose from the State’s failure to create adequate regular posts. The Court also emphasized that it had not prohibited the grant of such benefits in its previous judgments. The decision was reached after considering the facts of the case, the previous directions of the Supreme Court, and the principles of fairness and justice.

The Supreme Court observed:

“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.”

“To deny the same would be unjust and unfair to the appellants.”

“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.”

Key Takeaways

• Service as a Fast Track Court Judge will be counted towards pension and retiral benefits upon absorption into the regular judicial service.
• The State cannot deny benefits to judicial officers for their service in Fast Track Courts when the need for such courts arose due to the inadequacy of regular cadre strength.
• The decision ensures fairness and justice for judicial officers who have served in Fast Track Courts and were later absorbed into the regular judicial service.
• This judgment sets a precedent for similar cases where temporary appointments are followed by absorption into regular service.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed 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.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the service rendered as Fast Track Court Judges must be counted for pensionary and retiral benefits upon absorption into the regular judicial service. This clarifies the position of law that service in such temporary setups, which were created due to the State’s failure to create adequate regular posts, cannot be disregarded for the purposes of pension and retiral benefits. This judgment reinforces the principles of fairness and justice in the treatment of judicial officers who have served in such capacities.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Mahesh Chandra Verma vs. State of Jharkhand provides significant relief to judicial officers who served in Fast Track Courts. The Court unequivocally held that their service in Fast Track Courts must be counted towards their pension and retiral benefits upon their absorption into the regular judicial service. This decision underscores the principles of fairness and justice, ensuring that judicial officers are not penalized for serving in temporary setups created due to the State’s failure to maintain an adequate regular judicial cadre. The judgment sets a crucial precedent for similar cases, clarifying the rights of judicial officers in such circumstances.