Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 402 (MP)

Abida Qureshi v. State of M. P.

2009-03-30

VINEY MITTAL

body2009
ORDER (Oral) 1. This order shall dispose of 15 writ petitions, being WP No. 1837/ 2009 (S), WP No. 1632/2009 (S), WP No. 1654/2009 (S), WP No. 1656/ 2009 (S), WP No. 1657/2009 (S), WP No. 1658/2009 (S), WP No. 1659/ 2009 (S), WP No. 1660/2009 (S), WP No. 1661/2009 (S), WP No. 1663/ 2009 (S), WP No. 1664/2009 (S), WP No. 1666/2009 (S), WP No. 1667/ 2009 (S), WP No. 1669/2009 (S) and WP No. 3131/2009 (S), as identical controversy arises in all these cases. The main order is being passed in WP No. 1837/2009 (S). 2. The petitioner had initially been appointed on the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology, in the regular pay scales. She claims that the aforesaid appointment was a result of a regular selection process under the provisions of Rule 13 (5) of the M.P. Education Service (Collegiate Branch), Recruitment Rules, 1967. However, the said appointment of the petitioner was on emergency basis only. The petitioner had joined her duties w.e.f. January 16, 1989. The services of the petitioner were later on regularized, vide order dated February 8, 1999, with retrospective effect, i.e. with effect from December 24, 1998. On regularization of her services, the petitioner claims that she was entitled to senior pay scales w.e.f. January 16, 1993, and selection grade w.e.f. January 16, 1998, in , view of the circular issued by the State Government on February 10, 1992. 3. In similar circumstances, one Dr. (Smt.) Seema Raizada, claiming an identical relief had approached the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1763/2000, which was allowed by the Tribunal on February 26, 2001. Against the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, the State Government approached this Court, through a writ petition being W.P. No. 4863/2001, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on August 10, 2005. The claim made by Dr. (Smt.) Seema Raizada, as upheld by the Tribunal, was maintained by the Division Bench. The present petitioner also approached through a WP No. 2795/2006 (S), claiming an identical relief. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim made by her in the light of Dr. (Smt.) Seema Raizada's case (supra). 4. The present petitioner also approached through a WP No. 2795/2006 (S), claiming an identical relief. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim made by her in the light of Dr. (Smt.) Seema Raizada's case (supra). 4. However, the departmental authorities, vide order dated May 2, 2008, appended as Annexure P-9, with WP No. 1837/2009 (S), have rejected the claim made by the petitioner, by observing that the facts in Dr. Seema Raizada's case were different and distinguishable from the facts in the present case. The distinguishing feature, as per Departmental Authorities, was that in Dr. Seema Raizada's case, who had earlier been appointed on emergency basis, had later been selected in a regular selection process, through Public Service Commission, whereas the present petitioner, having been appointed on emergency basis earlier, had later on been merely regularized in service. The aforesaid order further reveals that it has been observed that a specific condition had been stipulated in the appointment order that at the first selection process, the aforesaid appointee would avail of the opportunity for regular selection process through Public Service Commission. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the factual observations contained in the impugned order, Annexure P-9. In my considered view, the distinction which was sought to be raised by the Departmental Authorities in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Seema Raizada viz-a-viz the claim of the petitioner, is totally non-existent and almost illusory. 6. It is not a matter of dispute at all between the parties, that Dr. Seema Raizada, also like the petitioner, had been appointed on emergency basis only. Later on Dr. Seema Raizada had participated in a regular selection process, conducted by the Public Service Commission, and as such on selection had been appointed on regular basis. On her appointment on regular basis, Smt. Seema Raizada had made a claim for higher pay scales etc. on the basis of various circulars of the State Government. The claim made by the said petitioner was upheld by the Tribunal. The judgment of the Tribunal was even maintained by a Division Bench of this Court, when the WP No. 4863/2001 filed by the State Government was dismissed on August 10,2005. 7. on the basis of various circulars of the State Government. The claim made by the said petitioner was upheld by the Tribunal. The judgment of the Tribunal was even maintained by a Division Bench of this Court, when the WP No. 4863/2001 filed by the State Government was dismissed on August 10,2005. 7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners have informed the Court that an SLP filed by the State in the case of Dr.(Smt.) Seema Raizada has already been rejected by the apex Court on December 3, 2007. Learned counsel further informed the Court that the requisite benefit has already been released in the case of Dr. Seema Raizada. 8. In the present case also, the petitioner having been appointed on emergency basis, the aforesaid appointment of the petitioner was converted into a regular appointment, when her service were regularized vide order dated February 8, 1999, with retrospective effect from December 24, 1998. Thus, for all practical purposes, on regularization of her services, the petitioner was to be treated as a regularly selected employee of the department, and by any stretch of imagination, could not have been distinguished from a person who had been selected by Public Service Commission. A person selected through Public Service Commission could not have been treated on better footing than the petitioner, whose services stood regularized on December 24, 1998. Thus, on such regularization, the petitioner, like Smt. Seema Raizada also becomes entitled to all the entitled benefits. 9.The distinction sought to be raised by the State actually amounts to drawing a distinction between two sets of regular Government employees, one who were selected through Public Service Commission and the other whose services were regularized by the Government itself. The said distinction is totally unreal and based upon foot-prints of an employee. Such a distinction, if allowed to be drawn, is clearly discriminatory and as such hit by violation of principles contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. The said distinction is totally unreal and based upon foot-prints of an employee. Such a distinction, if allowed to be drawn, is clearly discriminatory and as such hit by violation of principles contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. Even the objection raised by the Departmental Authorities that a condition had been put in the appointment order of the petitioner that she was to avail of first opportunity for her selection through Public Service Commission has also lost relevance, inasmuch as, once the State Government had itself regularized the services of the petitioner, then it was not open for the State Government to raise any objections to the source/channel, through which the petitioner had become a regular employee of the department. 11. In my considered view, the claim of the petitioners in the all writ petitions being identical, is squarely covered by the judgment of Dr. Seerna Raizada (supra) rendered by the Division Bench on August 10, 2005. 12. Consequently, all the writ petitions are allowed and the order dated May 2, 2008, Annexure P-9 is quashed. The respondents are directed to release all the benefits, which the petitioners are entitled,' as per law laid down in Dr. (Smt.) Seerna Raizada's case, within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is received.