Later, in the year 1983 the appellant was interviewed for the purposes of selection to the post of Assistant Professor on regular basis.
The appellant was also one of the writ petitioners before this Court.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Appellant acquired L.L.M Degree in the year 1977.
After 31.3.2003 services were number extended, with the result that the appellant ceased to be an employee of the University.
Subsequently, the post of Legal Assistant was re designated as Legal Associate by the order of the University dated 19.9.1987.
It was clarified that the appointments will companytinue to be what they were and the incumbents will number belong to the cadre of Research Assistants merely because their companysolidated salary is ordered to be worked out on the minimum of the time scale allowed to Research Assistant.
Though initially the appellant was allowed to draw the UGC pay scale, on 13.1.2003 numberice was issued to show cause as to why the excess payment made was number to be recovered from him.
The Udaipur University, re christened as Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, appointed him as Assistant Professor of Law in its College of Law, Udaipur on ad hoc basis in the regular pay scale of Assistant Professor.
The Single Judge directed the University and the Vice Chancellor to absorb the present appellant on a regular post from the date when the vacancy arose pursuant to the order of this Court dated 16.9.1992.
An undertaking was given on 27.12.1999 pursuant to the aforesaid order.
Subsequently, Registrar of the University informed the Dean, College of law, Udaipur that the term of temporary appointment to the appellant was number extended beyond 31.3.2003 as per the decision of the Board of management.
He, however, was number selected and as a result whereof, his services were number companytinued after 31.5.1983.
A review petition was filed before the High Court which was dismissed.
In that batch of writ petitions this Court rejected the demand of the petitioners for placement in the scale of Rs.700 Rs.1600/ .
They were to companytinue to carry on the same duties, which they were carrying out including assisting Assistant Professors.
By the order dated 19.6.1987 the companysolidated salary was enhanced to Rs.1,620/ per month.
It was indicated that the UGC scale was wrongly allowed to the appellant which resulted in excess payment.
In this regard the Registrar of the University by its letter dated 25.4.2003 informed the Dean, College of Law, Udaipur that the term of temporary appointment of the appellant as Legal associate has number been extended beyond 31.3.2003.
On 3.3.1990, the University terminated the services of the appellant with effect from 14.11.1988 on account of the absence of the appellant from duty.
This order and the show cause numberice formed subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge who as numbered above allowed the writ petition.
As Legal Assistant Legal Associate, appellant was paid a companysolidated salary of Rs.1,200/ per month.
It was further clarified that they will number be equated with Lectures Assistant Professors.
Notice referred to the order of this Court dated 16.9.1992 by which it was directed that Research Associates were to be allowed a companysolidated salary to be worked out by placing them on a basic salary of Rs.700/ per month.
This Court, keeping in view the plea of the petitioners, observed as follows We would leave it to the authorities to companysider the feasibility of preparing a scheme whereunder such research Associates can be absorbed in the regular cadre of research Assistants as and when vacancies arise.
It was further directed that while subjecting appellant for selection process, pass service rendered by him was to be given due weightage.
The absence was occasioned by the fact of his having proceeded for undertaking Ph.
18638 39 of 2004 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Even though the University had implemented the UGC recommendations and granted UGC scales in the case of members of teaching staff, it failed to grant the benefit of UGC scale to the Research Assistants Associates.
The order passed by the University was on the basis of the recommendations of the Committee to pay the UGC pay scale at a particular scale which was applicable at the relevant point of time and revised pay scale.
After a gap of about nine months, he was again appointed in the University on 23.2.1984 against the post of Legal Assistant but the appointment was liable to be terminated without numberice.
But, however, time for companypliance was fixed.
On behalf of the petitioners it was urged before this Court that even though they had put in long years as Research Associates they were still treated as ad hoc employees with numbersecurity of service.
The post also entitled the appellant to regular annual grade increments, which were companysequently given during the companyrse of his service in his capacity as assistant Professor.
Thus, he worked as Assistant Professor from 14.11.1977 until 31.5.1983 in the regular pay scale of Assistant Professor on ad hoc basis in the companylege of Law, Udaipur University.
D work at University of Delhi.
D Degree, the appellant was again appointed by the University on the post of Legal Assistant by its order dated 8.2.1990 on fixed salary of Rs.2,070/ per month as stop gap arrangement until 31.3.1991 or till the selection and appointment of a candidate to the post of Legal Associate, whichever was earlier.
The order was challenged before the Division Bench which as numbered above partly modified the order and held that regularization was number be granted as claimed but directed that the appellants case was to be companysidered on following the criteria as per the applicable rules.
This Court also allowed monetary benefits in the form of allowances admissible to regular employees drawing a basic pay of Rs.700/ per month.
The appointment as Legal Associate was extended from time to time and the final extension was granted to him until 31.3.2003.
After he acquired the Ph.
Arising out of SLP C Nos.
The benefit of the revised companysolidated salary was made available to them from the date of their appointment as Research Associates.
In order to companyplete the narration of facts, it is necessary to refer to a development which took place as a result of filing of a batch of writ petitions before this Court by Research Assistants Associates on account of refusal of the University to grant to them the scale of Rs.700/1600 recommended by the Grant Commission with effect from 1.1.1973.
This Court, however, directed that the Research Associates be allowed a companysolidated salary to be worked out by placing them at a basic salary of Rs.700/ per month, which was the minimum of the scale of Rs.700 1600.
Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, partly allowing the Civil Special Appeal filed by the present Vice Chancellor, Mohan Lal Sukhadia University in short the Union and others questioning companyrectness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
By the order which was impugned before the Division Bench, the learned Single Judge held that order dated 25.4.2003 passed by the University was number sustainable and both the Vice Chancellor and the University were directed to take back the present appellant in service as Legal Assistant with all companysequential benefits.
