{b BEFORE THE M.P. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH RAIPUR y m MW MOD/w/ O.A. NO. APPLICANT MT. MINAKSHI AGRAWAL Asstt. Professor Dept. of Home Science Govt. College Vaishalinagar, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS NON-APPLICANT 1. ‘State of M.P. through the Secretary Department of Higher Education Govt. of M.P. Vallabh Bhawan Bhopal (M.P.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Department of Higher Education D.K.S. Bhavan Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Commissioner Higher Education Govt. of M.P. Satpuda Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) 4. The Commissioner Higher Education Govt. of Chhattisgarh D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur Chhattisgarh 5. The Principal, Govt. College, Vaishalinagar Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ORIGLEAL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE M.P. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT. 1985 ‘\ S @V HIGH CCURT OF CHHATTISGARH 1 BILASPUR M SINGLE BENCH :M HON’BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA J. Writ Petition (S) No.401 712005 Appearance: Shri Manish Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No. 2, 4 8; 5. ORAL-ORDER (Passed on 29.4.2010) 1. The question which arises for consideration before this Court is that whether the petitioner could be deprived of increments in respect of the period during he worked on ad hoc basis. 2. On 30.10.1984, petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor on ad- hoc basis in the pay-scaie of Rs.700—1600l-. Later on petitioner‘s services were regularized on 15-06-1987. However, petitioner was not granted increments 'since her initial date of appointment titl the date of her regularization. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that this issue is no longer res integra. The matter r’elating to entitlement of increment of an ad hoc employee, appointed on a pay-scale, was earlier decided by the State Administrative Tribunal, which has been implemented by the Government. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Qircular dated 18‘“ August 19§3 (Annexure A-3), whereby the State Government in View of the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Dr. P.L. Malik Vs. State of MP. (1991 PETITIONER Smt. Minakshi Agrawai Versus RESPONDENTS State of Madhya PradeSh and {41/ M.P.L.S.R. 475), directed that increments would be avaiiable and payable in respect ef the period of ad hoc service. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record orders passed by the Tribunai in number of cases of Assistant Professors, wherein relying upon the order passed in the case of Dr. P.L. Malik (supra), ciaim for grant of increment in respect of the period of ad hoc service has been ailowed. . Per contra, submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that petitioner was not entitled to grant of increment unless her services were regularized She was appointed on ad hoc basis. She was regularized w.e.f. 15-06-1 987. From the date she was regularized, increments are being paid. It is submitted that in View of the executive instructions of the Government, the benefit of increments would be available oniy from the date of regularization of service and not from a date before that. In so far as petitioner’s claimobased on Government Circular dated 18.8.1993 (Annexure A—3) is concerned, it has been stated that in view of Circular dated 22“ July, 1993 (Annexure R-3), benefits of increments in respect of the ad hoc period of service would be available only when the artificial break is for a period of 3 days. It has also been. submitted that vide Circular dated 19.4.1996 (Agnexure R-Z), a direction has been issued that implementation of Circular dated 22.7.1993 has been stayed until further directions by the General Administrative Department. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to payment of increments. . The issue with regard to grant of increment in respect of ad hoc period of service having been decided by the Tribunal, it is not open for the Government to apply it selectively or to deny grant of benefit to the petitioner. ln the opinion of this Court, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the orders which have been placed on record by the petitioner. s -3- ‘ @D The Tribunal in the past has ordered fer gvant of increments to A5sistant Professors appointed on ad hoc basis in number of cases relying upon the order passed in the case of Dr. P.L. Maiik (supra). The law otharwise is aiso very Wei! settled that once an appointment has been made on a time scaie of pay‘ in the absence of there being anything contranj to the samet either in the order of appeintment or in the statutory rules governing such terms and conditions, in View of the provision contained in FR. 9(13) of the Fundamentai Ruies, increments are iiabie to be paid and the same could be withheld only by way of penalty on an allegation of misconduct. 7. Viewed from any angle, the action of the respondents in withholding- payment of increments in respect of the period of ad hoc service is not iustitied. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to pay increments to the petitioner in respect of the period of ad hoc service. , ”fl-es Sdl- r Manindra Mohan Shrivastava ‘‘ii THJUdge 9. No order as costs. i i Tumane