K. Anbazhagan and Ors. v. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras
Background
Five appellants were appointed in 2002 as Additional District and Sessions Judges in Tamil Nadu's Fast Track Courts, created under the Eleventh Finance Commission scheme, after being selected from practising advocates. They served between roughly 9 and 10+ years before being relieved, either on attaining 60 years of age or because the Fast Track Courts were discontinued. When they later sought pension, gratuity, and leave encashment, the Madras High Court rejected their claims, holding that Fast Track Courts were not a "pensionable establishment" and that the appellants were only contractual appointees.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that all three reasons given by the High Court for denying benefits were unsustainable. The appellants' posts were sanctioned by government order within the regular judicial establishment and paid from the same budget head as other Additional District Judges, so they were on a "pensionable establishment." Their appointment letters and the recruitment notification described the posts as "ad hoc," not "contractual", and ad hoc and contractual appointments are legally distinct categories, with ad hoc appointees holding against sanctioned posts. Applying the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 (including the rule allowing addition of one-fourth of service length for Bar recruits), the Court found all five appellants had completed the requisite ten years of qualifying service. It accordingly set aside the High Court's judgment and directed superannuation pension for the two appellants who retired on attaining 60, compensation pension for the other three whose posts were discontinued, along with gratuity and leave encashment (up to 240 days) for all, to be paid within two months with 7% interest on delay.
Lesson Learnt
Being labelled "ad hoc" or "temporary" does not automatically disqualify a government employee from pension: what matters is whether the post itself was created within a pensionable establishment and whether the employee completed the qualifying years of service; employers cannot defeat retiral dues merely by mischaracterizing the nature of the appointment.