Judges who served in fast track courts entitled for retiral benefits: Supreme Court

The top court, said the Fast Track Court Scheme was brought in to deal with the exigency of huge pendency of cases.

Published: 11th May 2018 11:31 PM  |   Last Updated: 11th May 2018 11:31 PM   |  A+A-

Supreme Court (File | PTI)


NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today ruled that judicial officers, who have rendered their services as fast track court judges, were entitled to pensionery and retiral benefits.

The top court, said the Fast Track Court Scheme was brought in to deal with the exigency of huge pendency of cases and the judicial officers in Jharkhand were appointed to the such courts who continued to work for almost a decade.

A bench of Justices J Chelameswar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul said "the need to set up Fast Track courts arose on account of delays in the judicial process, targeting certain priority areas for quicker adjudication".

Had there been adequate cadre strength of judicial officers, there would have been no need to set up these Fast Track courts, it said.

"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," the bench said.

The first preference for appointment as judges of fast track courts is given to ad hoc promotions from amongst the eligible judicial officers, while the second preference was given to retired judges who had good service records.

The third preference envisaged was to the members of the Bar for direct appointment to these courts.

Dealing with the case, the top court said that judicial officers in Jharkhand, who were appointed to the fast track courts after the state was carved out of Bihar on November 25, 2000, did not get the job "at the whims and fancy of any person, but were next in line on the merit list of a judicial recruitment process.

"It said these judges have rendered their services over a period of nine years and have performed their role as Judges satisfactorily, otherwise there would have been no occasion for their appointment to the regular cadre strength.

"We believe that it is a matter of great regret that these appellants (judicial officers) 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," it said and denying them the same would be "unjust and unfair".

The judicial officers had initially joined the service as Fast Track Judges, which was was challenged by certain members of the lower judiciary.

Their appointment was eventually upheld by the top court and their services regularised as district judges.

However, after the appointment, they were denied permission to withdraw salary under their earlier General Provident Fund by stating that their earlier services as Fast Track Judges will not be considered.

The judicial officers were also denied other benefits like leave encashment and travel allowances.

They challenged the denial of benefits in the Jharkhand High Court which ruled against them, following which they challenged the order in apex court.

Stay up to date on all the latest Nation news with The New Indian Express App. Download now
(Get the news that matters from New Indian Express on WhatsApp. Click this link and hit 'Click to Subscribe'. Follow the instructions after that.)


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the newindianexpress.com editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on newindianexpress.com are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of newindianexpress.com or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. newindianexpress.com reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

  • Observer

    Laudable verdict from the SC restoring the retiral benefits to the aggrieved/deprived judges.of fast track courts. Can we claim that even fifty percent of planned Fast Track Courts envisaged years back are actually built/operational now ? Yes we can? The SC has also in another recent verdict criticised the govt./depts/undertakings for a huge No. of pending cases in various courts which are also adding to unnecessary huge burden on the judiciary working with limited manpower(judges) and the SC had also probably advised the Govt. to review all such very large No. of pending cases from the govt.side to reduce the mega legal burden on courts. The concerned Union/State Depts.Ministers can surely call upon their depts/undertakings to compile the pending court cases list and submit the same to them within May for review and deciding on out of court settlements in as many cases as possible. The unfortunate practice hitherto for decades from govt.undertakings/depts has had been that once a decision is taken to challenge a case in the courts rightly or wrongly, the same line of logic, arguments etc is allowed to continue for decades for reasons not far to seek. The chairmen of these govt.companies/undertakings can also surely instruct compilation of unitwise pending legal cases for review and making the same as slim as possible through some conciliatory settlements out of court. The sooner it is done the better .for obvious contextual reasons.
    1 year ago reply
flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp