Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra, Through The ... vs Dr. Jyotsna Shamrao Potpite And ... on 7 April, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
0704WP4969.11-Judgment 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4969 OF 2011
PETITIONERS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary,
to Government of Maharashtra, Public
Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai -
400 032.
2. Director, Public Health Department, Saint
George Hospital, Mumbai.
3. Dy. Director of Health Services, Akola Circle,
Akola.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. Dr. Jyotsna Shamrao Potpite, Aged about 33
Org. Applicant years, Medical Officer, P.H.C. Talegaon
Thakur, Tq. Teosa, Dist. Amaravati.
Org.Respt.No.4 2. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Amravati.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. K. Joshi, Addl. Govt.Pleader for the petitioners.
Mr.C.V.Kale, counsel for the respondent No.1.
Ms S.Dashputre, counsel h/f Mr.P.B.Patil, counsel for
the respondent No.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI
, JJ.
DATED : 07.04.2017
0704WP4969.11-Judgment 2/6
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the State of Maharashtra and others
challenge the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated
31/03/2010, allowing an original application filed by the respondent
No.1 and directing the petitioners to grant the increment to the
respondent No.1 on completion of one year of service and continue to
grant the same to the respondent No.1 till she is continued in service.
2. According to the respondent No.1, who had filed an
original application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, in
view of the bond furnished by her at the time of securing admission to
the post graduation medical course, she was appointed as a medical
officer on ad hoc basis on 25/01/2000. The services of the respondent
No.1 were continued from time to time on ad hoc basis and she claimed
to have worked with the petitioners as an ad hoc medical officer till she
filed the original application in the year 2005. Since the respondent
No.1 was not granted increment after the completion of one year of
service and also further increments, the petitioner prayed in the original
application that a direction be issued to the petitioners to grant the
annual increment to the respondent No.1 after the completion of one
year and thereafter during every year, while she was in service. The
tribunal, by considering the orders passed by it in some other original
0704WP4969.11-Judgment 3/6
applications granted the relief in favour of the respondent No.1 and
directed the State Government to grant annual increment to the
respondents after completion of one year of service and to grant her
annual increments regularly till she was in service.
3. Mrs.Joshi, the learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the tribunal was not
justified in directing the petitioners to grant annual increments to the
respondent No.1 on completion of one year of service on ad hoc basis.
It is submitted that the respondent No.1 was appointed only for a
period of four months or till a candidate selected by the Maharashtra
Public Service Commission was appointed by the petitioners on the post
of medical officer, whichever was earlier. It is submitted that there was
a break in the services of the respondent No.1 on each of the occasions,
when a fresh appointment order was granted. It is stated that the Full
Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has held in the order
dated 03/03/2010 in Original Application No.240 of 2009 and others
that an employee, who is not appointed on regular basis and is
continued on ad hoc basis from time to time would not be entitled to
yearly increments. It is stated that it is well settled that only an
employee appointed on regular basis would be entitled to increments
after each year of service.
0704WP4969.11-Judgment 4/6
4. Shri Kale, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1,
supported the order of the tribunal. It is submitted that the respondent
No.1 was appointed as a bonded candidate on the post of medical
officer and though there was an artificial break in the services, the
respondent No.1 has in all worked for a period of nearly ten years as a
medical officer on ad hoc basis. It is submitted that the orders passed by
the tribunal in several other original applications were relied on by the
tribunal while granting the relief in favour of the respondent No.1. It is
submitted that the Full Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal has considered the cases of medical officers and lecturers that
were not duly selected but the respondent No.1 was selected by duly
constituted selection committee and her appointment is not irregular. It
is submitted that when the relief is granted to several other employees
that are similarly situated, the respondent No.1 cannot be left out.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears
that the tribunal was not justified in granting the relief in favour of the
respondent No.1 solely on the basis of the orders passed in some other
original applications. Probably, the order passed by the Full Bench of
the tribunal on 31/03/2010, was not brought to the notice of the
tribunal when the tribunal decided the matter in the original application
0704WP4969.11-Judgment 5/6
filed by the respondent No.1 on 31/03/2010. The tribunal, therefore,
wrongly relied on the decisions that were rendered by the Bench of Two
Presiding Officers of the Tribunal, without considering the decision
rendered by a Bench comprising of the Three Presiding Officers of the
tribunal. The appointment order of the respondent No.1 is placed on
record. The appointment order clearly shows that the respondent No.1
was appointed on ad hoc basis only for a period of four months or till a
candidate selected by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission was
appointed by the petitioners on the post of the medical officer,
whichever was earlier. The appointment order of the respondent No.1
clearly shows that the respondent No.1 was not even appointed for a
period of four months and her appointment could have come to an end
if a duly selected candidate was appointed by the recommendations of
the Maharashtra Public Service Commission on the post she was
holding. Merely because the respondent No.1 continued to serve as a
medical officer, the tribunal could not have directed the petitioners to
condone the break in the services of the respondent No.1 and grant her
annual increments. Had the services of the respondent No.1 regularised
from the date on which she was appointed, the respondent No.1 may
have been entitled to claim the increments after the end of each year of
service. However, it appears that the services of the respondent No.1
were not regularised till her services were terminated. The appointment
0704WP4969.11-Judgment 6/6
of the respondent No.1 was on temporary and ad hoc basis and the
respondent No.1 was therefore not entitled to claim yearly increments,
solely because she was permitted to continue from time to time as a
medical officer on ad hoc basis. It is well settled that only regular
employees would be entitled to increments and the other benefits to
which they are entitled to. We find that the tribunal has committed a
serious error in allowing the original application and directing the
petitioners to release the increments in favour of the respondent No.1.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The original
application filed by the respondent No.1 stands dismissed. Rule is made
absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
