Shankar Sharma V. State of Rajasthan & Ors  Insc 20 (9 January 2007)
Arijit Pasayat & S.H. Kapadia (Arising out of Slp (C) Nos. 18638-39 of 2004) Dr.
Arijit Pasayat, J.
in these appeals is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the
Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, partly allowing the Civil Special Appeal filed
by the present Vice Chancellor, Mohan Lal Sukhadia University (in short the
'Union') and others questioning correctness of the order passed by the learned
Single Judge. By the order which was impugned before the Division Bench, the
learned Single Judge held that order dated 25.4.2003 passed by the University
was not sustainable and both the Vice Chancellor and the University were
directed to take back the present appellant in service as Legal Assistant with
all consequential benefits. The Single Judge directed the University and the
Vice Chancellor to absorb the present appellant on a regular post from the date
when the vacancy arose pursuant to the order of this Court dated 16.9.1992.
facts in a nutshell are as follows:
acquired L.L.M Degree in the year 1977. The Udaipur University, re-christened as Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, appointed him as Assistant Professor of Law in its College of Law, Udaipur on ad hoc basis in the regular pay
scale of Assistant Professor. The post also entitled the appellant to regular
annual grade increments, which were consequently given during the course of his
service in his capacity as assistant Professor. Later, in the year 1983 the
appellant was interviewed for the purposes of selection to the post of
Assistant Professor on regular basis. He, however, was not selected and as a
result whereof, his services were not continued after 31.5.1983. Thus, he
worked as Assistant Professor from 14.11.1977 until 31.5.1983 in the regular
pay scale of Assistant Professor on ad hoc basis in the college of Law, Udaipur University. After a gap of about nine months, he was again appointed
in the University on 23.2.1984 against the post of Legal Assistant but the
appointment was liable to be terminated without notice. Subsequently, the post
of Legal Assistant was re-designated as Legal Associate by the order of the
University dated 19.9.1987. As Legal Assistant/Legal Associate, appellant was
paid a consolidated salary of Rs.1,200/- per month. By the order dated
19.6.1987 the consolidated salary was enhanced to Rs.1,620/- per month.
3.3.1990, the University terminated the services of the appellant with effect
from 14.11.1988 on account of the absence of the appellant from duty. The
absence was occasioned by the fact of his having proceeded for undertaking Ph.D
work at University of Delhi.
he acquired the Ph.D Degree, the appellant was again appointed by the University
on the post of Legal Assistant by its order dated 8.2.1990 on fixed salary of
Rs.2,070/- per month as stop-gap arrangement until 31.3.1991 or till the
selection and appointment of a candidate to the post of Legal Associate,
whichever was earlier. The appointment as Legal Associate was extended from
time to time and the final extension was granted to him until 31.3.2003. After
31.3.2003 services were not extended, with the result that the appellant ceased
to be an employee of the University. In this regard the Registrar of the
University by its letter dated 25.4.2003 informed the Dean, College of Law, Udaipur
that the term of temporary appointment of the appellant as Legal associate has
not been extended beyond 31.3.2003.
order to complete the narration of facts, it is necessary to refer to a
development which took place as a result of filing of a batch of writ petitions
before this Court by Research Assistants/Associates on account of refusal of
the University to grant to them the scale of Rs.700/1600 recommended by the
Grant Commission with effect from 1.1.1973. Even though the University had
implemented the UGC recommendations and granted UGC scales in the case of
members of teaching staff, it failed to grant the benefit of UGC scale to the
appellant was also one of the writ petitioners before this Court. In that batch
of writ petitions this Court rejected the demand of the petitioners for
placement in the scale of Rs.700-Rs.1600/-. This Court, however, directed that
the Research Associates be allowed a consolidated salary to be worked out by
placing them at a basic salary of Rs.700/- per month, which was the minimum of
the scale of Rs.700-1600.
Court also allowed monetary benefits in the form of allowances admissible to
regular employees drawing a basic pay of Rs.700/- per month. It was clarified
that the appointments will continue to be what they were and the incumbents
will not belong to the cadre of Research Assistants merely because their
consolidated salary is ordered to be worked out on the minimum of the time
scale allowed to Research Assistant. It was further clarified that they will
not be equated with Lectures/Assistant Professors. They were to continue to
carry on the same duties, which they were carrying out including assisting
Assistant Professors. The benefit of the revised consolidated salary was made
available to them from the date of their appointment as Research Associates. On
behalf of the petitioners it was urged before this Court that even though they
had put in long years as Research Associates they were still treated as ad hoc
employees with no security of service. This Court, keeping in view the plea of
the petitioners, observed as follows: - "We would leave it to the
authorities to consider the feasibility of preparing a scheme whereunder such
research Associates can be absorbed in the regular cadre of research Assistants
as and when vacancies arise. Since the educational requirements, process of
selection and jobs-charts are also identical such a scheme can be of mutual
benefit to the employees as well as the University, the employees getting
security of tenure and University getting experienced hands. We would expect
the University to examine the feasibility of preparing such a scheme at an
in view the order passed by this Court and on the recommendation of the
Committee constituted by the Board of Management, the Vice Chancellor was
allowed the UGC pay scales to the appellant. An undertaking was given on
27.12.1999 pursuant to the aforesaid order. Though initially the appellant was
allowed to draw the UGC pay scale, on 13.1.2003 notice was issued to show cause
as to why the excess payment made was not to be recovered from him.
referred to the order of this Court dated 16.9.1992 by which it was directed
that Research Associates were to be allowed a consolidated salary to be worked
out by placing them on a basic salary of Rs.700/- per month. It was indicated
that the UGC scale was wrongly allowed to the appellant which resulted in
excess payment. Subsequently, Registrar of the University informed the Dean,
College of law, Udaipur that the term of temporary
appointment to the appellant was not extended beyond 31.3.2003 as per the
decision of the Board of management. This order and the show cause notice
formed subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge who as noted
above allowed the writ petition.
order was challenged before the Division Bench which as noted above partly
modified the order and held that regularization was not be granted as claimed
but directed that the appellant's case was to be considered on following the
criteria as per the applicable rules. It was further directed that while
subjecting appellant for selection process, pass service rendered by him was to
be given due weightage. It was further directed that he was not to be denied
regularization on the ground that he has become overage. But no other relief
support of the appeals learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
High Court did not consider the effect of the fact that the appellant was
highly qualified and had rendered uninterrupted and unblemished service of more
than a decade. To deny regularization would be in equitable and unjust. It was
further submitted that the notice on the ground that excess payment have been
made is without basis.
conclusion that over payment has been made is really not correct. This Court's
order is being wrongly interpreted.
review petition was filed before the High Court which was dismissed. But,
however, time for compliance was fixed.
counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the judgment of the
manner in which the claim for regularization has to be dealt has been the
subject matter of this decision in several cases. In Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) and Ors.
(2006 (4) SCC 1), a Constitution Bench of this Court has considered the matter
at great length. In view of what been held therein, the conclusions of the High
Court in the matter of regularization suffered from no infirmity.
residual question is whether the University's view regarding the alleged over
payment is correct. In the order dated 27.12.1999 it was indicated that the
appellant will be placed in the pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13500 w.e.f. 1.1.1996.
also treated to be entitled in the scale equivalent to Assistant Professor for
the purpose of scale only not for designation. This Court in its order dated
16.9.1992 directed that the consolidated salary be worked out by placing the
petitioners in the scale of Rs.700-1600/- which was the minimum in the scale
and allowing benefits thereof in the form of such allowance allowed to be a
regular employee drawing a basic pay of Rs.700/- per month.
order passed by the University was on the basis of the recommendations of the
Committee to pay the UGC pay scale at a particular scale which was applicable
at the relevant point of time and revised pay scale. That being so, the view
that he had been paid contrary to the order of this Court is not correct and
cannot be maintained. Accordingly, the notice for recovery cannot be
maintained. To that extent the appellant is entitled to the benefit.
appeals are disposed of. No costs.