Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 843 (MP)

Dwarkadas Mahajan v. State of M. P.

2008-07-09

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2008
ORDER 1. The petitioner had approached the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal Bench at Indore (for short "the Tribunal") by filing Original Application No. 190/2000 seeking grant of senior pay 'scale from 23.9.1980 of Rs. 3,000/- - 5,000/- (revised to Rs. 10,000/--15,200/-) and interest on the arrears. On abolition of the Tribunal the said O.A. has been received by this Court for adjudication. 2. The petitioner's case is that on 23.9.1980 he was appointed on the post of Lecturer on ad hoc basis and was posted at Government Post Graduate College at Khargone. He was regularized under the M.P. Regularization of Ad Hoc Appointment Rules, 1986 (for short 'Regularization Rules, 1986') on 10.3.1987 on the post of Assistant Professor vide Annexure A-I. He submits that clause 10 of Appendix-I provides for scheme of revision of pay scale framed by the State Government which reads thus: "Career Advancement -Every Lecturer will be placed in a senior scale of Rs. 3,000 - 5,000 if he/she has : (a) completed 8 years of service after regular appointment, with relaxation as provided in para 9 above. (b) participated in two refresher courses summer institutes each of " approximately 4 weeks duration or engaged in other appropriate continuing education programmes if comparable quality as may be specified by the UGC. " . (c) consistently satisfactory performance appraisal reports. Explanation: All lecturers in the existing scale of 700-1,600/- who have completed 8 years of service on 1.1.1986 will be placed through process of screening/selection as indicated in para 19 below, in the scale of Rs. 3,000-5000/-. The benefit of service provided in para 9 will be available for the initial placement also. 3. According to the petitioner, he joined the service as lecturer on ad hoc basis 23.9.1980 and thus he was required to have been placed in senior pay scale on completion of 8 years service w.e.f. 23.9.1980. He further submitted that he did his two refreshers course and though was fulfilling the criteria provided for career advancement and grant of senior pay scale he was not extended benefits by the respondents. 4. The respondents filed the reply and have stated that the petitioner joined the service as ad hoc lecturer on 23.9.1980. His ad hoc appointment with effect from 23.9.1980 till regularization was a stop gap arrangement. 4. The respondents filed the reply and have stated that the petitioner joined the service as ad hoc lecturer on 23.9.1980. His ad hoc appointment with effect from 23.9.1980 till regularization was a stop gap arrangement. His regularization was done with effect from 10.3.1987 (Annexure A-I) under the Regularization Rules, 1986 with the condition that on the date of his regular appointment he shall be placed below the persons who have been appointed under the Recruitment Rules prior to the appointment of the petitioner under the Regularization Rules, 1986. The respondents stated that rule 12 of the Regularization Rules, 1986 under which the petitioner was regularised clearly provides that the person regularised under the Regularization Rules, 1986 shall be entitled for the seniority only from the date of Regularization. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petition is having no merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner has been regularized vide order dated 10.3.1987 (Annexure A-I). His appointment prior to 10.3.1987 was not a regular appointment but was a stop gap ad hoc appointment. It has also not been disputed that after completion of requisite period of 8 years with effect from 10.3.1987, and on his completion of two refreshers course during the period of his service he has been extended the benefit of senior pay scale. The petitioner is not entitled to claim seniority of the period of his ad hoc appointment. The period of 8 years is required to be calculated and has rightly been calculated from 10.3.1987 after his regular appointment as per Regularization Rules, 1986. The petitioner having accepted the regularization on the condition mentioned in the appointment order that he shall be placed below the persons who have been appointed prior to the petitioner's regularization by following relevant Recruitment Rules, cannot turn around and contend that he is entitled to claim for counting of the period of ad hoc services prior to the order of regularization of his service. In the case of Excise Commissioner Karnataka v. Shrikanta [AIR 1993 se 1564] and in Masood Akhter Khan v. State of M.P. [1990 JLJ 557 = (1990) 4 see 24], it has been held that on regularization the employee can claim seniority only from the date of regularization. 7. In the result no case for interference in this petition is made out. 7. In the result no case for interference in this petition is made out. Accordingly the petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.