Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
State Of Rajasthan & Anr vs Sura J Prakash Mathur on 18 November, 2015
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.411/2005
State of Rajasthan & anr.
Vs.
Sura J Prakash Mathur
Date of Order :: 18/11/2015
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. RANKA
Mrs. Manu Joshi, counsel for the appellants.
None present for the respondents.
We have taken the matter in the second round but none appears on behalf of the respondent.
We have heard counsel for the appellants and also perused the material on record.
The ld. Single Judge, under its order impugned dt.03/02/2005 disposed of the writ petition placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Farooq Ahmed & 59 others: 2005(1) WLC (Raj.) 1 wherein it was held that a person, who was appointed on adhoc/temporary basis in accordance with rules and such service rendered by him will be relevant for consideration for grant of selection grade on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service in terms of circular dt.25/01/1992.
Counsel for the appellants submits that in the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi: (2009) 12 SCC 49, what has been observed by the ld. Single Judge, may not hold good.
We have gone through judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Para 9, 20, 21 & 22 as under:-
9. Ad hoc appointment is not made in terms of the requirements of the rules. The benefit is extended to avoid stagnation. In case of ad hoc employees, stagnation is till the regularization is made. The stress in the present case is on regular appointment to cadre/service. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the State, the High Court confused itself with appointment to post. The question of promotion arises only when appointment is a regular appointment. Appointment to the post is not relevant; on the other hand, what is relevant is the period relatable to the cadre of the service.
20. The High Court failed to appreciate that the recruitment rules made a distinction between appointments made to the cadre/service in accordance with the relevant recruitment Rules which are regular and appointments made dehors the regular recruitment rules which are ad hoc.
21. So far as the dismissal of some special leave petitions summarily it is made clear that, it does not affect the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal and allow the same. It is well settled that a decision which is per incuriam is not law declared in terms of Article 141 to have a binding effect. (See B. Prabhakar Rao v. State of A.P. :1985 Supp (2)SCR 537; State of Maharashtra v. Digambar :(1995) (4) SCC 683; Union of India v. K.N. Sivadas :(1997) 7 SCC 30; State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd.: (1991) 4 SCC 139 and Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corpn. Ltd. v. Labour Court :(1990) 3 SCC 682.
22. Apart from Haryana Veterinary case the position in law as stated in State of Punjab v. Ishar Singh: (2002) 10 SCC 674 and State of Punjab v. Gurdeep Kumar Uppal: (2003) 11 SCC 732 clearly lays down that while reckoning the required length of service the period of ad hoc service has to be excluded. It is relevant to note that the first selection scale of pay was excluded several years back on completion of 9 years of service subsequent to regularization. After long lapse of time i.e. after nearly 8 years it was not open to be canvassed that the second selection scale of pay ought to be granted after the employees concerned having put in 18 years of service from the date of ad hoc appointment.
In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi (supra), the order of the ld. Single Judge is not sustainable in law.
Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order of the ld. Single Judge dt.03/02/2005 impugned herein is quashed & set aside. No costs.
(J.K. Ranka), J. (Ajay Rastogi), J.
Raghu Certificate:All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed.
Raghu, Sr. PA.