BEFORE THE M.P. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH RAIPUR 0.A. N0. APPLICANT DR. KAILASH SHARMA Asstt. Proiessor Deptt, of Hindi Govt. Ccllege, Vaishali Nagar Bhilai Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS H NON—APPLICANT State of M.P. through the Secretary Department of Higher Education Govt. of M.P. Vallabh Bhawan ~Bhopa1 (M.P.) 2. State of Chattisgarh through the Secretary Department of Higher' Education Govt.of C.G. D.K.S.Bhawan,Raipur(C.G) 3. The Commissioner Higher Education Govt. of M.P. Satpuda Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) 4. The Commissioner Higher Education Govt. of Chattisgarh D.K.S.Bhawan,Raipur(C.G.) 5. The Principal, Govt. College, Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai ( C.G.) ORIGINAL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE M.P. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT‘ 1985 1. Particulare,oin s m: ‘H HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR ..// Writ Petition (S) No. 4019/2005 . The question which arises for consideration before this Court is that Whether the petitioner could be déprived of increments in respsct of the period during he worked on ad hoc basis. . On 3.12.1984, petitionerwas appointed as Assistant Professor on ad— hot; basis in the pay-scale of Rs.700—1600/—. Later on petitioner’s services were regularized on 15.6.1987. However, petitioner was not granted increments since his initial date of appointment till the date of s his regularization. . 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. SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOI-IAN SHRIVASTAVA J. Dr. Kailash Sharma PETITIONER Versus RESPONDENTS State of M.P. and others Appearance: Shn‘ 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) . Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Circular dated 18th August 1993 (AnnexurC 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 has been allowed. \1‘\ . Per contra, submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that petitioner was not entitled to grant of increment unless his services were regularized. I-le was appointed on ad hoc basis. He was regularized w.e.f. 15.6.1987. From the date he 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 the'iartificial 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. ‘ 6. 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. In 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. The Tribunal in the past has ordered for grant of increments to Assistant Professors appointed on ad hoe 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. ‘ . 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. 3 . 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. : Praveen 9. No order as costs. sd/ . ‘Maningra Mohan Shrivastava ral\ W 'igrjudge