High Court of Rajasthan
Case Law Search
BHAIRU RATAN HARSH v RAJ.KRISHI VISHWAVIDHYALA & ANR - SAW Case No. 91 of 2004  RD-RJ 1133 (12 July 2005)
Umesh Chandra Yete & Anr. Vs. State & ors.
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 284/2001.
Bhairu Ratan Harsh Vs. Raj.Krishi Vishwavidhyalaya & Anr.
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 91/2004.
Ramesh Purohit Vs. Rajasthan Agriculture University &
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 133/2004.
Smt. Kalpana Srivastava Vs. State & ors.
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 286/2004.
Date of Order : 12.07.2005.
HON'BLE MR. RAJESH BALIA, J.
HON'BLE MR. R.S. CHAUHAN, J.
Mr. R.S. Saluja }
Mr. Mukesh Vyas } for the appellants.
Mr. Ramchandra Bishnoi }
Mr. H.R. Soni, Additional Government Advocate.
Mr. D.S. Rajvi for the respondents.
These appeals have been filed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in separate writ petitions filed by the appellants respectively. Issue raised in the writ petition is common in all the appeals and proceed on identical facts and most of the Circulars and orders relied are the same, therefore, we heard these appeals together and are being disposed of by a common order.
We may briefly notice that in the case of D.B.
Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.91/2004, the appellant- petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Lower
Divisional Clerk on 14.1.88 in the Rajasthan Agricultural
University, Bikaner. In fact, the petitioner was initially appointed as a casual Lower Divisional Clerk on a fixed wages. The petitioners having not availed the benefit of regular Selection Scale, the opportunity was given to the persons appointed on casual basis for regularising their services by appearing in job test.
The services of the appellant-petitioner were terminated on 21.1.91. The termination order was challenged by filing a writ petition No. 51/91 before this
Court along with other matters. Vide judgment dated 4.4.94, the learned Single Judge of this Court has upheld the contention of the University that the petitioners having failed to avail the opportunity of being regularly selected, their services could not be treated as regular services by the University. However, considering the fact, the
University had since terminated the services of the petitioner and ordered enquiry of other persons on adhoc basis who have been appointed without selection.
Upholding the contention that the adhoc temporary appointment cannot be substituted by any adhoc appointment in the absence of regularly selected candidates, the petitioners were allowed to continue subject to direction that in the subsequent selections by the University, the petitioner be permitted to take part for being regularly selected and if the University so wishes may grant a proper opportunity for regularising the services of the petitioner by holding a separate job test and failure of passing the test by them, the services of the petitioners will be terminated.
Along with this, the Court has further directed that since the petitioner's services may be continued w.e.f. the date of filing the petition i.e. 21.7.90, and the petitioners may be fixed in the regular pay scale and not on fixed pay.
Pursuant to this direction, on being passing the test vide order dated 21.8.95, the petitioner was given a regular appointment clearly indicating that the date of petitioner's regular appointment shall be the date of such appointment order on 6.9.95, though the regular pay scale was given w.e.f. 21.7.90 in terms of the direction issued by this Court as noticed above.
In order to ameliorate the condition of the government employees amongst Class IV, who have limited promotion chances and was stagnated, the
Government issued directives on 21.1.92 for selection scale at intervals of 9, 18 and 27 years of service, to those who have not received any promotion subject to the condition of their good service record during the period of 9, 18 and 27 years.
About the counting of period of 9, 18 and 27 years of service, there had been controversy as to what should be the status and the initial date of appointment as envisaged in Clause 3 of the order dated 25.1.92.
According to which, the service of 9, 18 and 27 years, as the case may be, has to be counted from the date of first appointment in the existing cadre/service in accordance with the provisions contained in recruitment rules. While various government departments were raising doubt about the date of first appointment in the existing cadre of service, it has to be taken to be the date of first appointment on substantive basis against an existing vacancy, whereas the beneficiaries of the Government order agitated that the first appointment in Class IV of any quality whether adhoc or temporary or urgent or in work charge, if appointment was in accordance and under the recruitment rules.
This Court has consistently accepted that the adhoc, temporary or urgent appointment period is to be counted for the purpose of counting the period of 9, 18 and 27 years under Clause III for such appointment under such Rules. It need not be necessary for regular appointment against a substantive vacancy. The reference in this connection be made to Pushplata Thada's case, a
Full Bench decision of this Court reported in2001(2) WLC
(Raj.) page 560, which has since been affirmed by the
Supreme Court while rejecting the Special Leave Petition filed by the State and an order was also accepted, on reference being made to the Full Bench reported in 2005
(1) WLC page 1.
It may be noticed here that the orders passed by the Government in respect of its employees were not a priority extended to the employees of Rajasthan
University, which is an independent autonomous body having an independent status of the State and terms and conditions of the employees of the University are to be decided by the authorities under that Statute independently if the Government orders on the material placed on record. It appears that in the first instance on 15.9.2000, the Board of Management of the respondent-
University referred the decision of Tribunal in the case of
Chail Bihar Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors on 15.9.2000. On 4.9.2001, the order was made by Vice Chancellor of respondent University that period of 9, 18 and 27 years of the employees of the Rajasthan Agricultural University for the purpose of giving Selection Scale shall be counted by including temporary or adhoc services and arrears shall be paid after approval of the State Government and if the
State Government does not approve the Resolution, the employees who has taken the benefit of orders, shall be liable to refund the amount which shall be refunded in the salary bill. The incumbent was to furnish an undertaking before availing the benefit that if the State Government does not approve the Resolution, the University shall be entitled to recover the amount paid under Resolution from his salary bill.
In furtherance to these orders, this order ultimately culminated into Resolution by the Board of
Management in its meeting dated 11.5.2001.
However, petitioner appellant in terms of the aforesaid orders given undertaking that if the Government has not approved the Resolution, the amount paid be recovered from the appellant. It is on this point, the petitioner was given the benefit of Selection Scale by computing the period of his service from 21.7.90 instead of 26/30 May, 1995.
As well- stood the term, the Government did not approve the inclusion of the period for which incumbent served on temporary or adhoc appointment.
The Government communicated its decision dated 8.8.2000 asking the University to recover the amount paid for adhoc period taking into consideration the length of the service of the employees on adhoc period. On receipt of this letter dated 8.8.2002, the matter was again remanded before the Board of Management and the Board of
Management notified that the University will follow the guidelines issued by the State Government for not computing the period of granting the Selection Scale and recover the same immediately in future also. The adhoc period would not be counted for granting Selection Scale.
To that effect, a Notification was issued on 26/30 May, 2003 and the recoveries were sought to be made from the petitioners.
This led to filing of this writ petition being S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.2230.2003. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition no.3422/2003 filed by the present appellant alongwith S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.3684/2003 filed by Mr. Ramesh Purohit, which is subject matter of D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.133/2004.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.