Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahendra Singh Chundawat vs Maharana Pratap University And ... on 5 December, 2022
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7743/2009
Mahendra Singh Chundawat S/o Shri Chaturbhuj Singh, Aged
about 46 years, R/o A/104, Subhash Nagar, District Bhilwara,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology,
Udaipur, Rajasthan through its Registrar.
2. Registrar, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and
Technology, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner, Rajasthan
through its Registrar.
4. Registrar, Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Nupur Bhati with
Mr. Vikram Singh Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. Rajendra Prasad
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
05/12/2022
The brief facts of the case are as under:-
The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Agriculture Officer
on adhoc basis against the post of Lecturer vide order dated
14/15.04.1987. Subsequently in the year 1988, he was issued a
call letter for appearance in the selection process for the purpose
of Technical Assistant/Assistant Agriculture Officer. After having
participated in the said process and having selected, he was
appointed as Assistant Agriculture Officer in regular pay scale vide
order dated 06.06.1988 although on adhoc basis. Vide order dated
(2 of 5) [CW-7743/2009]
29.08.1997, the petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant
(Agricultural) on regular basis in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900.
The case of the petitioner is that although the petitioner was
appointed on a regular pay scale on 06.06.1988 and further, was
granted the appointment on regular basis as Technical Assistant in
the year 1997 but has not been regularized despite his completing
more than 25 years of service.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that similarly
situated persons have been regularized by the University and to
substantiate the fact, a document pertaining to one Girdhar Gopal
has been placed on record whereby he has been regularized w.e.f.
06.06.1988, i.e. the date of his initial appointment in regular pay
scale. The documents pertaining to the other similarly situated
candidates have also been placed on record wherein they have
been granted the regular pay scales as well as the pay fixations
meaning thereby, have been regularized in their services. Learned
counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sampat Singh
Rathore v. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture &
Technology; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6591/2018, decided
on 17.10.2022.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that appointment of the petitioner on 06.06.1988 was totally on
adhoc basis and therefore, the said period of his service on adhoc
basis cannot be considered for the purposes of regularization.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
A perusal of the order dated 06.06.1988 whereby the
petitioner was appointed in the regular pay scale shows that one
(3 of 5) [CW-7743/2009]
Girdhar Gopal was also appointed vide the same order. The
document revised/pay fixation statement placed on record as
Annex.-11 specifies that said Girdhar Gopal has been granted the
pay fixation benefits w.e.f. 06.06.1988, i.e. his original date of
appointment. The documents pertaining to the other employees
have also been placed on record who admittedly were working on
adhoc basis and whose services have subsequently been
regularized.
Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to
refute the fact that Girdhar Gopal as well as the other employees
have been regularized w.e.f. the date of initial appointment.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of the State of
Gujarat & Ors. vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel (2022 LiveLaw
(SC) 187) dealing with the question whether pensionary benefits
to an ad-hoc employee who retired after rendering more than 30
years of service would be admissible or not, was pleased to hold
as under:-
"It is unfortunate that the State continued to take
the services of the respondents as an ad-hoc for 30
years and thereafter now to contend that as the
services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he
is not entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The
State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its
own wrong. To take the services continuously for 30
years and thereafter to contend that an employee
who has rendered 30 years continues service shall
not be eligible for pension is nothing but
unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such
ought not to have taken such a stand."
In Sampat Singh Rathore's case (supra) wherein also the
issue pertaining to an employee of the respondent University was
under consideration, the Co-ordinate Bench held as under:-
(4 of 5) [CW-7743/2009]
"Undisputably, the petitioner served
respondents for more than 32 years without any
break in service from the date of initial appointment
i.e. 08.03.1983. The appointment of the petitioner
on the post of Technical Assistant (Agriculture)
pursuant to advertisement dated 29.05.1982 was
accorded in the pay-scale of Rs.550-1010/- by the
MLS University, Udaipur. It is noticed that pursuant
to the advertisement dated 29.05.1982, 25
candidates were selected on the post of Technical
Assistant (Agriculture). Out of 25 candidates
selected, services of all candidates except the
petitioner had been regularised by the respondents.
The petitioner from the date of initial appointment
served respondents in the regular pay- scale and all
service benefits which are otherwise available to a
regular employee such as increments, selection
scales, pay revisions along with seniority have been
extended.
In the considered opinion of this Court the fact
that appointment was offered to the petitioner, on
the basis of merit-list prepared by a selection
committee, after considering applications of all
eligible candidates in response to the advertisement
dated 04.03.1983 in regular pay-scale is sufficient to
draw a conclusion that appointment against
available vacant posts was regular and substantive.
The denial of regularization of the services and
consequential relief of pension and other ancillary
benefits to the petitioner is violative of Article 14
and 21 of the Constitution of India."
In view of the admitted fact that the petitioner had been
working since 1987 with the respondent-University and has been
granted regular pay scale vide order dated 06.06.1988 and
similarly situated candidates have been regularized w.e.f. initial
date of appointment, specifically Girdhar Gopal, who was
appointed along with the petitioner on the same date, the
petitioner deserves to be granted the same benefits.
In view of the above observations, the present writ petition
is allowed. The respondent-University is directed to regularize the
service of the petitioner w.e.f. 06.06.1988, i.e. his initial date of
(5 of 5) [CW-7743/2009]
regular appointment. The petitioner would be entitled to the
consequential benefits arising out of the said order.
All the pending applications stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
141-Sachin/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
