K. ANBAZHAGAN AND ETC. vs. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

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. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date: 2018.08.13 16:49:00 IST Reason: 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

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   st the period after the 1  January 1961  for  which authentic records of service may  be available. (vi) Pension or revised pension admissible as  the d case shall be paid from, the 23r  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 th prior   to   the   14   February,   1996,   the   retirement benefit or revised retirement benefit, as the case may be, admissible to  them shall be paid from the th 14  February, 1996 and there shall' be no claim for th arrears  in any case, for the period up to the 13 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

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:­ “2 7 (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:

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

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.