Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sampat Singh Rathore vs Maharana Pratap Uni. Of Ag. And ... on 17 October, 2022

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6591/2018

Sampat Singh Rathore son of Shri Jagannath Singh Rathore, aged about 63 years, resident of Village & Post Bhari, Tehsil Kekri, District Ajmer at present working on contractual basis in Plasticulture Farm (CTAE), Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur

----Petitioner Versus

1. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur through its Registrar

2. Director, Directorate of Extension Education, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur

3. Agriculture University, Kota through its' Registrar

4. Director, Directorate of Extension Education, Agriculture University, Kota

----Respondents Connected with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6438/2018

----Petitioner Versus

1. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur through its Registrar

2. Director, Directorate of Extension Education, Agriculture University, Kota

3. Agriculture University, Kota through its' Registrar

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mrig Raj Singh Rathore, Mr. Om Prakash Choudhary, for Mr. M.S. Godara

(2 of 7) [CW-6591/2018]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Order

17/10/2022

These writ petitions involving interdependent issues are

heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner vide

order dated 08.03.1983, came to be appointed on the post of

Technical Assistant (Agriculture), pursuant to advertisement

No.05/1982 dated 29.05.1982, in the MLS University, Udaipur. In

the order of appointment, it was stipulated that appointment has

been made on ad-hoc basis till March, 1983, which is to be

extended from month to month. The petitioner pursuant to the

appointment order 08.03.1983, started working in MLS University.

The entire agricultural faculty of MLS University was merged with

the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner which was created in

the year 1987. Subsequently in the year 2000, by way of an

enactment, the Rajasthan Agriculture University was divided and

Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur

(hereinafter referred to as 'MPUAT') came to be established. After

creation of MPUAT, the services of the petitioner were transferred

to the said university. Later on in the year 2013, Agriculture

University, Kota was established by promulgation of Act No.22 of

2013. The services of the petitioner were thereupon transferred to

Agriculture University, Kota. The petitioner after discharging more

than 32 years of uninterrupted services with the respondents

stood superannuated on 31.08.2015.

(3 of 7) [CW-6591/2018]

The petitioner in Sampat Singh Rathore vs. Maharana

Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology & Ors. (S.B.

C.W. No.6438/2018), has prayed for following reliefs:-

"a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed.

b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, impugned inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not sanctioning/releasing due amount of retiral benefits like commutation, gratuity and final pension of the petitioner in spite of lapse of almost three years of his retirement may kindly be declared illegal and accordingly, they may kindly be directed to sanction and release due amount of retiral benefits including final pension of the petitioner forthwith.

c) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent authorities may further kindly be directed to release due amount of arrears of pension after revision from time to time and other consequential benefits to the petitioner as per law forthwith.

d) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent authorities may further kindly be directed to make payment of interest @9% per annum on the delayed payment of due retiral benefits including arrears of final pension to the petitioner forthwith.

e) Any other appropriate order, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

f) Cost of writ petition may also please be awarded in favour of the petitioner."

In Sampat Singh Rathore vs. Maharana Pratap

University of Agriculture & Technology & Ors. (S.B. C.W.

6591/2018) following reliefs have been prayed for:-

"a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed.

b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, impugned inaction on the part of the respondent authorities more particularly the respondent No. 1-University in not regularizing the services of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 15.03.1983 (Annex. 13) may kindly be declared illegal and accordingly, the same may kindly be discarded.

c) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent No. 1-University may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services and accordingly, regularize him in service w.e.f.

(4 of 7) [CW-6591/2018]

the date of his initial entry in service i.e. 15.03.1983 as has been done in the cases of similarly situated other employees forthwith

d) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent authorities may further kindly be directed to grant all other consequential benefits along with interest @9% per annum on the delayed payment of the same to the petitioner forthwith

e) Any other appropriate order, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

f)Cost of writ petition may also please be awarded in favour of the petitioner."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has served respondents continuously for more than 32

years. The petitioner during service was allowed pay fixation,

increments, selection scales and all other ancillary service

benefits. The name of the petitioner was also included in the

seniority list pertaining to Technical Assistant (Agriculture) issued

by the respondents from time to time. Attention of the Court was

drawn towards communication dated 14.08.2017, whereby MPUAT

University informed Agriculture University, Kota that though

employees similarly situated were given regular appointment

pursuant to selection process initiated vide advertisement dated

29.05.1982, the petitioner who was appointed on ad-hoc basis has

continued to serve in the said capacity throughout, therefore,

pensionary benefits available to the regular employees are not

applicable.

Learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of this Court

in the case of Jagdish Prasad Vs. Maharana Pratap University

& Anr. (S.B. C.W. No.3908/2014) wherein benefit of relief of

regularisation of services was extended in favour of the similarly

situated employee.

(5 of 7) [CW-6591/2018]

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted

that the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis for a limited

period however, services were extended in administrative

exigency. It was further submitted that since services of the

petitioner were not regularized on the post of Technical Assistant

(Agriculture), the benefit of pension and other retiral benefits

cannot be extended. It was further submitted that all monetory

benefits which are available to ad-hoc/temporary employees of the

respondent-University had already been extended to the

petitioner, therefore, the writ petition does not deserve any

indulgence by this Court.

Heard submissions advanced at Bar and perused the material

available on record.

The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Maharana

Pratap, University & Anr. vs. Jagdish Prasad (D.B S.A.W.

No.588/2022), while affirming the order passed by a Coordiante

Bench in the case of Jagdish Prasad vs. Maharana Pratap

University & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3908/2014),

held as under:-

"It is admitted position that the respondent retired from the services of the appellant-University in the year 2017. The learned Single Judge has made observations in the impugned order that the similarly situated other two employees have been regularized and the case of the respondent stands at par with them. There is also a reference to the reported judgment wherein, in identical facts situation, the Court has taken a view that the petitioner therein may be entitled to regularization of services.

On independent scrutiny of the grounds taken in the appeal memo, as also the annexures thereto, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is in consonance with the material and documents which were placed on record by the parties. It is not in dispute that even prior to 1998, the respondent was given

(6 of 7) [CW-6591/2018]

work on the establishment of the University and thereafter he was placed in a particular pay scale. It would be travesty of justice in case persons like the respondent is informed after retirement and despite unblemished service record that he is not entitled for regularization of service. The record produced by the appellant-University before the learned Single Judge itself indicates that the original petitioner has rendered his services in a particular pay scale satisfactorily and with unblemished record. It is not necessary for us to go into the details. Suffice it to say that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, which were in the peculiar facts of the case, are not perverse and need no interference by this Court in the special appeal."

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."

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

(7 of 7) [CW-6591/2018]

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