Supreme Court Grants Pension and Retiral Benefits to Fast Track Court Judges in Tamil Nadu

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of K. Anbazhagan & Anr. v. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras & Anr., ruled in favor of former Fast Track Court (FTC) judges in Tamil Nadu who had been denied pension and retiral benefits. The judgment, delivered on August 13, 2018, by a bench comprising Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan, set aside the Madras High Court’s decision that rejected the petitioners’ claims for pension, gratuity, and leave encashment.

Background of the Case

The petitioners were former FTC judges appointed in Tamil Nadu following the recommendations of the Eleventh Finance Commission. They were recruited from the Bar to serve as Additional District and Sessions Judges (FTC) on an ad hoc basis. The scheme, which was introduced in 2001, aimed to expedite the disposal of long-pending cases.

Their initial tenure was for five years, which was later extended. However, their appointments were eventually terminated as FTCs were discontinued, and they were denied pension and other retiral benefits. The petitioners approached the Madras High Court, which dismissed their claims. Aggrieved by this decision, they appealed to the Supreme Court.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The appellants, represented by senior counsel, put forward the following arguments:

• They were appointed in a pensionable establishment and should be entitled to benefits like regular judges.
• The artificial distinction made between FTC judges recruited from the Bar and those promoted from lower judiciary was unjustified.
• They had served continuously for over ten years and thus met the qualifying service criteria for pension under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.
• Fast Track Court judges were absorbed within the regular judicial system, and hence their service should be considered for pension.
• The deduction of General Provident Fund (GPF) from their salaries further confirmed their status as government employees.

Respondents’ Arguments

The State of Tamil Nadu and the High Court of Madras opposed the claim, contending that:

• The appellants were appointed on a contractual basis and were not part of the regular judiciary.
• Since FTCs were temporary in nature, their appointments did not grant them pension rights.
• Their tenure ended due to the discontinuation of FTCs, and there was no policy provision to regularize them in judicial service.
• They had voluntarily accepted the terms of their appointment, which did not guarantee pension benefits.

Supreme Court’s Observations

After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court made the following key observations:

• The petitioners were appointed under a government-sanctioned scheme and served in the same judicial establishment as regular judges.
• Their service was not akin to purely contractual employment since they functioned as judicial officers, maintained discipline, and followed the same conduct rules as regular judges.
• The deduction of GPF contributions from their salaries indicated that they were treated as part of the pensionable establishment.
• The termination of their services was an administrative decision due to the discontinuation of FTCs, but this should not deprive them of pension benefits.
• The principle of equal pay for equal work and non-discrimination applied, meaning that similarly placed judicial officers should be entitled to the same benefits.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners and issued the following directives:

• The Madras High Court’s order was set aside, and the appellants were granted pension and retiral benefits.
• Judges who had completed 10 years of service were entitled to pension under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.
• Judges who had served for a shorter period were entitled to compensation pension under Rule 38 of the pension rules.
• All appellants were entitled to gratuity and leave encashment benefits.
• The Tamil Nadu government was directed to calculate and disburse the benefits within two months. Failure to do so would result in an interest penalty of 7% per annum.

Impact of the Judgment

The ruling had far-reaching implications for judicial officers across India:

• Reaffirming Pension Rights: The verdict reinforced that government-appointed judicial officers should not be arbitrarily deprived of retiral benefits.
• Equal Treatment in Judiciary: It established that Fast Track Court judges recruited from the Bar should be treated similarly to those promoted from the subordinate judiciary.
• Prevention of Service Discrimination: The judgment set a precedent ensuring that judges who served in temporary capacities under government schemes are not denied their rightful benefits.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s verdict in K. Anbazhagan & Anr. v. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras & Anr. reaffirms the principle of justice for judicial officers who dedicated their careers to public service. By recognizing their right to pension, gratuity, and retiral benefits, the judgment upholds the values of fairness, non-discrimination, and equal treatment within the judiciary.

Petitioner Name: K. Anbazhagan & Anr..
Respondent Name: The Registrar General, High Court of Madras & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice A.K. Sikri, Justice Ashok Bhushan.
Place Of Incident: Tamil Nadu.
Judgment Date: 13-08-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: K. Anbazhagan & Anr. vs The Registrar Genera Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 13-08-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Pension and Gratuity
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by A.K. Sikri
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category