HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR ' SINGLE BENCH HON’BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA J. Writ Petition (S) No.4015/2005 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 duringshe worked on ad hoc basis. 2. On 22 8 1982 pet1t1oner Was appomted as Ass1stant Professor on ad— hoc bas1s 1n the pay-scale of Rs 700 1600/— Later on petltloners services were regularized on 4.3.1987. However, petitioner was not granted increments since her initial date of appointment till the date of s her regularization. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that this issue is no longer res integra. The matter relating 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. PETITIONER Smt. Rukmani Sahu Versus RESPONDENTS State of M.P. and others Appearance: Shri Manish Sharma, COunsel for the petitioner. Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No. 2, 4 85 5. ORAL-ORDER (Passed on 5.5.2010) @D . Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Circular dated 18th August 1993 (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 M.P. (1991 M.P.L.S.R. 475), directed that increments would be available and payable in respect of the period of ad hoc service. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record orders passed by the Tribunal in number of cases of Assistant Professors, wherein relying upon the order passed in the case of Dr. P.L. Malik (supra), claim for grant of increment in respect of the period of ad hoc service I has been allowed. . 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. 4.3.1987. 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 only from the date of regularization of service and not from a date before that. In so far as petitioner’s claim based on Government Circular dated 18.8.1993 (Annexure A-3) is concerned, it has been stated that in View of Circular dated 22nd July, 1993 (Annexure R-3), benefits of increments in respect of the ad hoc period of service would be available only when thesartificial break is for a period of 3 days. It has also been submitted that Vide Circular dated 19.4. 1996 (Annexure R-2), 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.‘ n?o?? of service having been decided hy the Tribunal, it is not open for the Government to apply it selectively or to deny grant of benefit to the In the opinion of this Court, the case of the petitioner is 6. The issue With regard to grant of increment in respect of ad hoe pe petitioner. squarely covered by the orders which have been placed on record by the petitioner. The Tribunal in the past has ordered for grant of increments to Assistant Professors appointed on ad hoc basis in number of cases relying upon the order passed in the case of Dr. P.L. Malik (supra). The law otherwise is also very well settled that once an appointment has been made on a time scale of pay, in the absence of there being anything contrary to the same, either in the order of appointment or in the statutory rules governing such terms and conditions, in View of the provision contained in FR. 9( 13) of the Fundamental Rules, increments are liable 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 justified. x . 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. M, 9. No order as costs. Sd/ . ’Manindra Mohan Shrivastava 2g ‘7 p MHJudge i in, Praveen