JUDGMENT D.N. Patel, A.C.J. - Notice upon respondents. 2. Counsels for Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 waives Notice on behalf of the said respondents. 3. This writ petition has been preferred praying for the following reliefs: "1. That by this writ application, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Hon''ble Court for issuance of appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions or order/orders for the following reliefs:- (i) To direct the respondents to pay the amount under the heading unutilized earned leave, as sanctioned by Notification dated 23rd January 2016 issued by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (respondent no.3). (ii) To quash and set aside the decision contained in letter no. 5323 dated 11.4.2017 (Annexure-9) of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, whereby and where under, the request for payment of the amount under the heading unutilized earned leave has been refused. (iii) To direct the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount under the heading unutilized earned leave with effect from the same was payable till the date of actual payment. (iv) For any other appropriate relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found to be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of this case as also to do conscionable justice to the petitioner." 4. In pursuance of the Notice issued by this Court, counsels for both sides submitted their cases at length. 5. Having heard counsels appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this petitioner was appointed as Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) on 7th February, 2002. He rendered his services honestly, diligently, sincerely and to the satisfaction of the High Court of Jharkhand. 6. It further appears from the facts of the case that the scheme of Fast Track Court was brought to an end on 31st March, 2011 by the Central Government and hence, all these Fast Track Court judges moved before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court confirmed the order of termination vide judgment rendered in the case of Pravas Kumar Singh & Others vs. State of Jharkhand , (2011) 2 JLJR 207 . 7. The matter went up to Hon''ble the Supreme Court. 7. The matter went up to Hon''ble the Supreme Court. Special Leave was granted and ultimately Civil Appeal preferred by the Fast Track Court judges was allowed by exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Said judgment is reported in ( Mahesh Chandra Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others. , (2012) 11 SCC 656 ), relevant paragraph of which reads as under: "15. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for some of the appellants, submitted that from the documents, copies of which have been produced by the High Court and also from the submissions of the State of Jharkhand, it is clear that the vacancies of FTCs were anticipated and contemplated and that the appellants were in the select list of the examination process conducted in pursuance to the advertisement dated 23-5-2001. The process of appointment cannot be said to have been completed after appointment of the first lot of 17 as the posts of FTC Judges were still to be filled up and the panel was valid for a year. The counsel submitted that the High Court never intended that the appointments would be ex-cadre appointments. Selection letters issued by the High Court state that names of the appellants have been included in the select list of the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service for appointment as Additional District Judges, but the appointment shall be initially be on ad hoc basis in the regular scale of Additional District judge. The selection letters further state that the appointments were likely to continue and in the first instance they will be posted as Presiding officers of the FTCs. The counsel submitted that from the selection letters it is clear that the appointments were ad hoc initially, but were likely to continue and were, in fact, substantive appointments." 8. In pursuance of the aforesaid decision, a written test as well as an interview was conducted and Fast Track Court judges were reinstated and this petitioner joined the services on 11th July, 2013. 9. This petitioner is in service since the aforesaid date and now he claims encashment of unutilized earned leave of 160 days for which an application was preferred before this Hon''ble Court and this Court has sanctioned the encashment of the unutilized earned leave vide order dated 23rd January, 2016. 10. 9. This petitioner is in service since the aforesaid date and now he claims encashment of unutilized earned leave of 160 days for which an application was preferred before this Hon''ble Court and this Court has sanctioned the encashment of the unutilized earned leave vide order dated 23rd January, 2016. 10. Recommendation of the High Court was turned down by the Government mainly for the reason that for the period running from the year 2002 to 31st March, 2011, the Fast Track Court judges were appointed on adhoc basis and therefore, they are not entitled for encashment of the unutilized earned leave. This order was passed by the State of Jharkhand on 11th April, 2017 (Annexure 9 to the memo of this writ petition). 11. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by aforesaid order of the Government, present writ petition has been preferred. 12. Having heard counsels appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that now examination as well as interview has been conducted as per direction of Hon''ble the Supreme Court and this appellant has been reinstated. 13. Few of the Fast Track Court judges moved the court for adding their previous services as Fast Track Court judges, to be counted for their length of service in deciding whether they are entitled to pension or not. The matter reached up to Hon''ble the Supreme Court and it has been held by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Mahesh Chandra Verma v. State of Jharkhand , (2018) AIR SC 2924 in Paragraph 18 as under: "18. 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." 14. In view of the aforesaid decision, their services have been held as pensionable by Hon''ble the Supreme Court. Moreover, the period between initial termination of their services and reinstatement is to be taken into consideration for calculation of the length of service, but, not for grant of salary. In view of the aforesaid decision, their services have been held as pensionable by Hon''ble the Supreme Court. Moreover, the period between initial termination of their services and reinstatement is to be taken into consideration for calculation of the length of service, but, not for grant of salary. Thus, the services rendered by this petitioner and other Fast Track Court judges is a pensionable service and as they had served for a period also which qualifies their services as pensionable, they are entitled for encashment of unutilised earned leave also. Even for the earlier period also, viz. from the year 2002 to 2008, he was given encashment of unutilised earned leave and therefore, we see no reason for not granting leave encashment for unutilised leave of 160 days. 15. Moreover, other similarly situated Fast Track Court judges, namely Mr. Mahesh Chandra Verma, Mr. Rizwan Ahmad and Mr. Sandeep Sharma have been granted encashment of earned leave, hence, there is no reason for the Government to discriminate against this appellant. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, we, hereby, allow this writ petition. 17. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we, hereby quash the aforesaid Annexure 9 to this writ petition, dated 11th April, 2017. The amount towards encashment of the unutilized earned leave shall be given by the Respondent Government within a period of three months from today. Counsel for the petitioner is not pressing the prayer for interest.