Tenure as ad-hoc judges not counted to determine seniority, elevation to High Court: Supreme Court

The time served by a judicial officer as an ad-hoc judge will not be considered to determine seniority and, consequently, elevation to High Court, the Supreme Court reiterated recently. [C Yamini and ors vs High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi and anr]. .A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi observed that the issue was settled in an earlier Supreme Court decision in Kum C. Yamini v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.In that judgment, the Supreme Court had held that judicial officers are not entitled to claim the benefit of seniority from the date of their initial appointment as ad hoc judges. Further, the Supreme Court had observed that such service as ad hoc judges would only be factored in for the purpose of pensionary and other retiral benefits. As such, Justices Rastogi and Trivedi dismissed a plea by nine judicial officers who were aggrieved by the non-consideration of their service as ad-hoc judges in deciding on elevations of judges to the Andhra Pradesh High Court. "Since the services rendered by the petitioners as Fast Track Court Judges have not been recognized by this Court for the purpose of seniority except for pensionary and other retiral benefits, the plea raised by the petitioners to consider their service rendered as fast track court judges as a judicial service for the purpose of Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution, in light of the judgment of this Court what being prayed for, is not legally sustainable," the order stated. .The judicial officers (petitioners) had been appointed initially as ad-hoc Judges for Fast Track Trial Courts in 2003. They were appointed as regular Judges in 2013. They moved the Supreme Court for relief after the High Court Collegium did not consider them for elevation to the High Court as they had not completed ten years of regular judicial service, as required under Article 217 (2) (a) of the Constitution. The petitioners contended that this criterion (of ten years judicial service) would be met if their tenure as ad-hoc judges were also taken into account. They also pointed out that they had served for ten years as Judges (including their time as ad hoc judges) without a break in the cadre, and that others junior to them had since been elevated to the High Court.The Supreme Court, however, dismissed their plea since its earlier judgment on the issue made it clear that the petitioners' service as ad-hoc judges can only be counted for pensionary and other retiral benefits, and not for seniority..Advocates Aruna Gupta, Ramesh Allanki, and Syed Ahmad Naqvi appeared for the petitioners. Advocates Gagan Gupta and Arvind Kumar Sharma appeared for the respondents..[Read order]