Service As Fast Track Judge Not Counted For Pension : Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Of Deceased Judicial Officer's Wife

The Supreme Court issued a notice in a plea preferred by the wife of a deceased judicial officer who was denied his pensionary and retiral benefits despite over 10 years of total service as a Judicial Officer.

The bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti heard a case where the deceased judicial officer joined judicial service on 16.05.1991 and after about 8 years, he was superannuated on 01.02.1999. Then he was re-engaged as a Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Court and he served in that capacity for two years from 15.09.2001 to 14.03.2003. Eventually, he passed away on 16.10.2022 without the benefit of a pension despite over 10 years of total service as a Judicial Officer.

The Appellant/wife assailed the Patna High Court's Judgment which denied relief to the appellant and opined that the service rendered by her husband as a Judge of the Fast Track Court should not be counted for making the incumbent eligible for pension as a regular Judicial Officer as he had rendered service for less than 10 years.

Mr. Kripa Shankar Prasad, AoR, representing the appellant, cited the case of Mahesh Chandra Verma vs. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary and Others (2018) to contend that the service rendered as a Fast Track Court Judge shall be counted for their length of service in the determination of pension and other retirement benefits.

“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 as Fast Track Court Judges to be counted for their length of service in determination of their pension and retiral benefits.”, the court said Mahesh Chandra Verma's case.

Accordingly, the bench issued notice returnable within four weeks.

Case Title: PURNIMA PRASAD VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Click Here To Read/Download Order