SC directs TN govt to give retiral benefits to 5 former judicial officers

The Supreme Court today directed the Tamil Nadu government to give retiral benefits to five former judicial officers, who were appointed as fast track judges from the Bar and were later relieved.

The apex court set aside the April 1, 2015 verdict of the Madras High Court, saying it had erred in rejecting the claim of pension of the five officers.

The five former judicial officers were appointed as fast track judges from the Bar in Tamil Nadu, consequent to creation of fast track courts (FTC) under the Eleventh Finance Commission Report of the Government of India.

A bench of justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan directed the state government to sanction superannuation pension to former judicial officers K Anbazhagan and P G Rajagopal, who were relieved on account of attaining 60 years of age.

 

The top court also directed the authorities to sanction compensation pension to the other three former judicial officers, Selvi G Savithri, R Radha and A S Hassina, who were relieved by the high court as fast track courts were converted into permanent courts of additional district judge by a government order of August 26, 2011.

"When the appellants (officers) are entitled for grant of pension, they are obviously entitled for grant of gratuity," the bench said and allowed their pleas.

It directed the authorities to permit encashment of earned leaves of the officers subject to a maximum of 240 days and said that all these retiral benefits be computed and paid to them within two months from today.

In the event payments are made after two months, the appellants shall be entitled for such payments along with the simple interest at 7 per cent per annum, the bench said.

On February 14, 2002, the high court had appointed the persons, who all were advocates, as additional district and sessions judge (FTC) on ad-hoc basis, initially for five years, which was later extended.

After being relieved, in 2011-2012, the officers filed pleas for their absorption as additional district and sessions judge in the regular cadre, which was dismissed by the high court.

Thereafter, they sought grant of pension and other retiral benefits, which were also rejected by the high court on April 1, 2015. They moved the apex court challenging the high court's decision.