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

The Supreme Court upheld that employees were entitled to increments during temporary service as per their contract of employment, dismissing the State's appeal. Regarding the grant of selection grades, the Court ruled that such grades should be granted from the date of regularization, not from the initial ad hoc appointment, emphasizing the binding precedent set in a previous case. The Court criticized the High Court for not following the precedent and highlighted the duty of advocates to assist the court ethically. Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and held that selection grades were only due from the date of regularization.

---

---

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.

---