2014 (6) TMI 983 - SC - Indian Laws

Employees entitled to increments during temporary service as per contract, selection grades from regularization date.

State of Rajasthan and anr. Versus Surendra Mohnot and others

The Supreme Court upheld that employees were entitled to increments during temporary service as per their contract of employment, dismissing the State's ... Appointment on ad hoc basis as Lower Division Clerks - grant of selection grade - whether the respondents would not entitled to grant of increments during the period of their temporary service? - Held tat:- Ad hoc appointment is always to a post but not to the cadre/service and is also not made in accordance with the provisions contained in the recruitment rules for regular appointment. Although the adjective “regular” was not used [pic]before the words “appointment in the existing cadre/service” in Para 3 of the G.O. dated 25-1-1992 which provided for selection pay scale the appointment mentioned there is obviously a need for regular appointment made in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. What was implicit in the said paragraph of the G.O. when it refers to appointment to a cadre/service has been made explicit by the clarification dated 3-4-1993 given in respect of Point 2. Our preceding analysis would clearly show that the dictum in Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi (2009 (5) TMI 959 - SUPREME COURT) covers the controversy. The respondents prior to regularization were not members of service or a part of the cadre and hence, the benefit of the circular pertaining to selection grade was not applicable to them. Therefore, the irresistible conclusion is that they are only entitled to the benefit of selection grade from the date of regularization. The period of nine years, eighteen years and twenty seven years has to be computed from that date. True it is, they may have been given the first benefit on an erroneous understanding of the circular and also prior to the decision in Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi’s case. But that would not entitle them to assert their claim on that basis, for that would be contrary to the law of the land as stated in Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi’s case. Be it noted, the State, as the latter circular would indicate, has decided not to take any steps for recovery of the benefit. Therefore, we conclude and hold that the writ petition preferred by the respondents before the High Court deserves dismissal and, accordingly, the order passed by the writ court and the decision in intra-court appeal are set aside and the writ petition stands dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to increments during the period of temporary service.2. Grant of selection grades based on ad hoc service.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to increments during the period of temporary service:The respondents were appointed on an ad hoc basis as Lower Division Clerks and were later regularized. They challenged the State Government's refusal to grant increments for the period before their regularization. The Division Bench of the High Court opined that the appellants were entitled to increments during their temporary service based on the contract of employment. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, which dismissed the State's appeal, affirming that the respondents were entitled to increments during their temporary service as the posts carried a time scale and pay.2. Grant of selection grades based on ad hoc service:The State of Rajasthan issued a circular prescribing Selection Grades for employees, which stipulated that the service period for granting selection grades would be counted from the date of regular appointment. The respondents sought selection grades from the date of their initial ad hoc appointment. The High Court allowed their writ petition based on a previous decision in Chandra Shekhar's case, which dealt with increments during temporary service. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the Chandra Shekhar case did not pertain to selection grades but only to increments.In the case of Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi, the Supreme Court held that ad hoc appointments or appointments on daily wages could not be treated as appointments made to the cadre/service in accordance with recruitment rules. The period for grant of selection grades must be reckoned from the date of regularization, not from the date of ad hoc service. The Supreme Court emphasized that the decision in Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi was a binding precedent, and the respondents were only entitled to selection grades from the date of their regularization.The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for not considering the binding precedent and for relying on a decision that was not applicable to the issue at hand. The Court reiterated that there can be no estoppel against law, and a concession made by a government advocate on a question of law is not binding. The Court also highlighted the duty of advocates to assist the court properly and the higher responsibility of counsel representing the State to state facts correctly and protect public interest.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and dismissed the writ petition, holding that the respondents were entitled to selection grades only from the date of their regularization. The Court also emphasized the importance of ethical conduct and responsibility of advocates in assisting the court.