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 23.02.2002  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 compliance 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 1st 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 23rd June,  1988.]

33

11(3) Half of the service rendered by a Government servant under non­pensionable 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 14th  February, 1996, the retirement benefit or revised retirement benefit, as the case may be, admissible to  them shall be paid from the 14th February, 1996 and there shall' be no claim for arrears  in any case, for the period up to the 13th

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:­

“27(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.