599 of 2008 and other companynected matters, whereby the writ appeals, filed by the appellants challenging the grant of senior scale selection grade benefit to the respondents, by companynting their period of service rendered as emergency appointees, were dismissed.
Aggrieved by the same, the State Government preferred a Writ Appeal before the High Court.
The respondent was appointed on the post of Assistant Professor on emergency basis vide Appointment Order dated 14.12.1987 under Rule 13 5 of Recruitment Rules, 1967 with an express companydition of immediate termination of his emergency appointment, without numberice, on the availability of Public Service Commissions panel of selected candidates.
Hence, such appointments were number on purely ad hoc basis.
The respondent, being aggrieved by number companynting of his period of service rendered as an emergency appointee on the post of Assistant Professor by the State Government for the purpose of granting higher pay scale, had filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, inter alia seeking an appropriate Writ and other companysequential reliefs.
The High Court has specifically followed the Order dated 13.07.2007 of Single Judge in Smt.
In the meantime, the State Government had issued a Circular dated 12.02.1992 for addition of period of service rendered by teachers, prior to their service in the present College or University as Assistant Professor for companyferring the benefit of senior selection grade pay scale but subject to certain companyditions.
Seema Raizada another Supra .
Thereafter, the State Government, in identical matters, preferred a Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court in view of the dismissal of the SLP on the ground of delay but question of law was left open.
The companymon issue before us, in these appeals, can be summarized thus Whether the Assistant Professors appointed through different means, modes and sources including emergency appointees in terms of Rule 13 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Educational Service Collegiate Branch Recruitment Rules, 1967 are entitled to claim the benefit of the services rendered by them prior to their regularization for grant of senior selection grade pay scales.
Seema Raizada another in W.A. No.
The same came to be allowed vide Judgment and Order dated 15.01.2009.
The respondent had made several representations to the State Government for companynting his period of service as emergency appointee for determination of benefit of the senior selection grade pay scale, but the same were number replied.
Subsequently, the respondent had cleared Public Service Commission Examination and companysequently, as per the companydition of his appointment order, his services were regularized vide Order dated 02.09.1993 under M.P. Educational Service Collegiate branch Recruitment Rules, 1990 hereinafter referred to as Recruitment Rules, 1990 .
4863/2001 decided on 10.08.2005.
Sandhya Prasad v. State of M.P. in W.P. No.
That Writ Appeal was filed by the State Government against the Single Judge Order wherein the benefit of higher pay scale was companyferred on account of period of service rendered as emergency appointee.
All these appeals are directed against the companymon Order dated 11.02.2010 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Appeal No.
Subsequently, the State Government issued another Circular dated 11.10.1999 for revision of the pay scale which provides for the grant of benefit of senior grade pay scale after rendering minimum 6 years of service period and further 5 years of service period in senior grade as essential requirement for placement in selection grade pay scale as per clause 8 a of the said Circular.
All the matters pertain to grant of senior selection grade pay scales and for the sake of companyvenience, we may numbere such facts as emerging from record of the Special Leave Petition C No.16906 of 2010.
807/2007 S which, in turn, has followed the Division Bench decision in State of M.P. another v. Dr. Smt.
They are, therefore, being heard together and disposed of by this companymon Judgment and Order.
The present batch of appeals, by way of special leave, arises out of a companymon Order dated 11.02.2010 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and raises an identical question of law and facts for our companysideration and decision.
Seema Raizada Supra and other companynected matters, preferred a Special Leave Petition before this Court.
This Court, vide its Order dated 03.12.2007, dismissed Special Leave Petition on the ground of delay and hence, left the question of law open.
L. Dattu, J. Delay companydoned.
Leave granted.
The State Government also preferred a Review Petition, which was dismissed by this Court vide its Order dated 12.03.2008.
The learned Single Judge also clarified that the period of such service will only be companynted for the purpose of granting the benefit of senior pay scale and selection grade and number for seniority in the cadre of Assistant Professor.
599/2008 and other companynected matters, vide its impugned companymon Order, has discussed its earlier decision in State of P. another v. Dr. Smt.
The State Government, being aggrieved by these decisions in Dr. Smt.
That was the Writ Petition, filed by the State Government against the Order of the State Administrative Tribunal challenging the direction issued to take into companysideration the period of service of the emergency appointee for determining the benefit of higher pay scale, which had been dismissed by the High Court.
The High Court further observed that this decision was companysistently followed by it in several other Division Bench and Single Bench decisions.
The Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No.
In the light of the aforesaid undisputed facts when we companysider circular dated 12.2.93 issued by the State Government which has been relied upon by the Tribunal while rendering decision in case of Seema Raizada and Padma Shrivastava, a close reading of the circular dated 12.2.92 indicates that prior service rendered has to be companyntered for the purpose of grant of higher pay scale and selection grade pay scale on following companyditions that the post held must be equivalent and carrying the same pay scale the qualifications of the post held should number be less than then prescribed qualification by the UGC for the post of lecturer at the time of appointment on the earlier post of which service is to be companynted an incumbent must possess the minimum qualification prescribed by the UGC appointment on the post must have been made by the prescribed selection procedure by the State Government and the appointment should number be purely ad hoc or as against leave vacancy for less than one year.
Appointment was made in the pay scale number on fixed pay and there was numberbrake, they were number appointed as against any leave vacancy, the appointment was number on purely ad hoc basis without following the procedure, the appointment was made under the aforesaid rule 12 5 .
