PANCHANAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) All the petitioners who were selected in the Bihar Judicial Service Examination and appointed as such came to be, during their period of service while serving in the parent cadre, appointed as ad hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court. They have come up contending that the period which has been rendered as an ad hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, should be counted for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited the judgement in the case of Brij Mohan Lal (1) Versus Union of India [(2002) 5 SCC 1] and Brij Mohan Lal (2) Versus Union of India [(2012) 6 SCC 502] . Learned counsel for the petitioners has further invited the attention of the Court to the judgement in the case of Mahesh Chandra Verma (1) Versus State of Jharkhand and Ors. [(2012) 11 SCC 656] and Mahesh Chandra Verma (2) Versus State of Jharkhand and Ors. [(2018) 7 SCC 270]. The fifth judgement cited by the learned counsel is the latest pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Kum C. Yamini Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., decided on 14th of August, 2019 by Three-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court.