Gujarat High Court
Gayatri R Nagar vs State Of Gujarat on 10 June, 2022
Author: Vipul M. Pancholi
Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi
C/SCA/25924/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 25924 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
GAYATRI R NAGAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AD OZA(515) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5
MR ROHAN N SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 10/06/2022
CAV JUDGMENT
1. In this petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner had prayed for the following reliefs :
"7(A) Be please to admit and allow this petition;
(B) Be please to issue a writ of mandamus and/or certiorari or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions;Page 1 of 18 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 14 20:57:32 IST 2022
C/SCA/25924/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022
(i) To declare that action on the part of the respondent authorities in terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 26.02.2003 is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law and amounts to disobedience of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Special Civil Application No.1286 of 1988 and hence, this Hon'ble court may be pleased to quash and set aside the termination order dated 26.02.2003;
(ii) To declare that petitioner is entitled to continue as confirm Lecturer in Micro-Biology and she may be treated as continued as a Lecturer after the date of her conversion as lecturer by the respondent authorities vide Annexure-C and respondent authorities may be directed to protect the pay-scale and to pay her salary in the regular pay scale for the post of lecturer after adding yearly increments;
(iii) Directing the respondent authorities to treat the petitioner continuing in the services as lecturer from the date of her conversion vide Annexure-C as such further directing the respondent authorities to pay to her the salary in the regular pay scale applicable to the lecturer revised from time to time and to extend to her the benefits of the said pay scale and emoluments all throughout till date and further to give benefits of special increments since the petitioner is Ph.D. as if she has been continued in service.
(iv) Directing the respondent to accord to the petitioner seniority, confirmation and all other benefits including back wages from the date of her termination till the date of her actual continuing in service as lecturer and also the difference of back wages which is at present paid and the petitioner is entitled to receive as per her seniority on the basis of her continuous service from the date she came to be converted as lecturer.
(BB) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to fix and pay all the pensionary and retiral benefits along with consequential benefits to the petitioner forthwith and further be pleased to direct the respondent to pay the arrears with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
(BBB) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to Page 2 of 18 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 14 20:57:32 IST 2022 C/SCA/25924/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022 initiate proceedings against the respondent no.4 including departmental inquiry.
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain the respondent-
authority from taking any decision whereby the rights of the petitioner are adversely affected and further be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the salary as per the last salary drawn i.e. basic pay of Rs.11,300/- and other allowances in the month of February, 2003 and consequential benefits applicable thereto.
(CC) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to fix and pay the provisional pension along with all retiral benefits.
(D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent- authorities to decide the representations of the petitioner produced at Annexure-R and S to this petition and further be pleased to direct the respondent-authorities to place the said decisions on the record of this petition;
(E) xxxx"
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.A.D.Oza for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr.Rohan N Shah for respondent nos.1,3 and 4. Though served, none appears for respondent nos.2 and 5.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is possessing qualification of M.Sc.Ph.d. in Microbiology with higher second class in B.Sc. and M.Sc. The petitioner, therefore, is qualified to be appointed as lecturer in the respondent no.2 college. It is submitted that the petitioner came to be appointed as demonstrator in Microbiogy subject in the respondent no.2 college in the pay scale of Rs.500-900/- vide order dated 20.1.1982. It is submitted that as per the rules and regulations, Staff Selection Committee of respondent no.1 called for name from employment exchange. The name of the petitioner Page 3 of 18 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 14 20:57:32 IST 2022 C/SCA/25924/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022 was forwarded by the employment exchange. Thereafter, the interview of the petitioner was taken by the Selection Committee and the petitioner came to be selected as demonstrator on a substantive post. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner has been appointed after following rules and regulations. At this stage, it is pointed out that the petitioner was placed in respondent no.2 college on the clear vacant post and as the post of demonstrator is falling under Class III, the question of selection for the said post by Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC for short) does not arise. It is also pointed out from the record that on reference by the government, it was made clear by the GPSC that looking to the appointment of the petitoner as demonstrator in Microbiology, it does not fall within its jurisdiction.
3.1 Learned advocate Mr.Oza further submits that new pay scales known as `Sen Commission Pay Scales' were adopted by the University Grants Commission (UGC for short) and they were implemented by the respondents. This new scheme provided for conversion of the existing staff to new cadres. Thus, the post of demonstrator/tutor was converted to the post of lecturer by this new scheme of pay scale. The petitioner acquired eligility during the year 1983 and therefore her post of demonstrator was treated as upgraded with retrospective effect from 12.10.1983. Learned advocate has referred to the notification dated 12.8.1985 specifically mentioning for the conversion of the petitioner's post to that of lecturer. Thereafter, the arrears of salary were paid to the petitioner. Learned advocate, therefore, contended that services of the petitioner were actually treated as regularized in the cadre of the lecturer with effect from 12.10.1983.
3.2 Learned advocate Mr.Oza, at this stage, submits that inspite Page 4 of 18 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 14 20:57:32 IST 2022 C/SCA/25924/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022
of the aforesaid legal position, the petitioner has been treated by the department as adhoc demonstrator and insisted for confirmation of the GPSC. In fact, the petitioner was appointed as demonstrator which falls under Class III and therefore the confirmation of GPSC is not required. In fact, the petitioner was appointed after following procedure by the Selection Committee duly constituted by the government. It is contended that at least, three of the colleagues of the petitioner who have been similarly situated were converted to the post of lecturer i.e. Shri P.M.Pandya, Shri H.S.Sharma and Shri U.B.Bhatt. It is submitted that the said three persons were working as demonstrator after being selected by the Selection Committee. Learned advocate referred to the averments made in paragraph 2.6 of the petition.
3.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner, thereafter, submitted that at the end of the academic term on 29.4.1988, the petitioner reasonably apprehended that she will be terminated from service and therefore she filed petition being Special Civil Application No.1286 of 1988. This Court passed the order on 15.3.1988 and issued notice. This Court also granted ad-interim relief in favour of the petitioner. After hearing both the parties, this Court issued Rule and continued the ad- interim relief till further orders vide order dated 15.4.1988. It is submitted that the said ad-interim relief remained in operation throughout. However, the respondent terminated the services of the petitioner vide order dated 26.2.2003. The said order of termination was issued on the ground that the Division Bench of this Court passed an order with respect to adhoc lecturers those who have been appointed purely on temporary basis. It is submitted that the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings of the said matter. Inspite of that, the respondent has wrongly placed reliance upon the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Page 5 of 18 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 14 20:57:32 IST 2022 C/SCA/25924/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022 Letters Patent Appeal No.485 of 2002 and allied matters. The petitioner, therefore, made representation to the respondents and pointed out the correct facts. It was pointed out that the petition filed by the petitioner is still pending wherein this Court has granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that order of termination was served on 26.2.2003. Learned advocate for the petitioner, at this stage, submitted that thereafter, the respondent authority has realized that they have committed contempt and therefore by order dated 17.1.2004, the petitioner has been given posting by the respondent no.1 and she was posted as lecturer in VP and RPTP Science College, Vallabhvidyanagar. At this stage, it is also submitted that once again, the department has committed illegality by giving fresh appointment to the petitioner and that too on the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500/- with minimum basic salary. It is pointed out at this stage that in the meantime, the petitioner had withdrawn her petition on 18.12.2003 as the order of termination was passed. The said petition was withdrawn with a view to file fresh petition.
3.4 Learned advocate Mr.Oza, thereafter, submitted that Gujarat college of the respondent government is the only college wherein the post of lecturers in microbiology exists. The petitioner, therefore, made representation to the respondent authority and requested to absorb the petitioner on the original post with continuity of service. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to the original post on 9.2.2005. The petitioner, thereafter, made several representations to the respondent authority and requested for continuity of service and protection of pay scale.
3.5 Learned advocate Mr.Oza for the petitioner, at this stage, pointed out from the record that during the pendency of the present petition, the respondent attempted to retire the petitioner at the age of 58 Page 6 of 18 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 14 20:57:32 IST 2022 C/SCA/25924/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022 years and thereafter again at the age of 60 years. Learned advocate has referred the pension papers which are placed on record. The petitioner, therefore, made representation and pointed out that the retirement age prescribed for the lecturer is 62 years. Thus, the respondents, after considering the representations and legal position, could not retire the petitioner at the age of 58 years and thereafter at the age of 60 years. The petitioner, thereafter, attained the age of superannuation i.e. 62 years and the petitioner came to be retired vide order dated 11.6.2020. However, pensionary and retiral benefits were not given to the petitioner though the petitioner has served for more than 38 years as lecturer in the government college. It is contended that the petitioner performed her duties as Head of Microbiology department and also performed duty as coordinator of PG Centre of Microbiology. Learned advocate would submit that while making attempt to retire the petitioner at the age of 58 and 60 years, communication related to pension papers and retiral benefits were sent to the petitioner and thereby the petitioner was informed to sign the pension papers. However, surprisingly, when the petitioner was retired at the age of 62 years, pensionary and retiral benefits were not extended to her.
3.6 Learned advocate Mr.Oza would contend that the GPF was being deducted from the salary of the petitioner till October, 2017. However, respondent no.5 with malafide intention with a view to affect the present proceedings, has stopped the deduction of GPF from the salary of the petitioner. Respondent no.4 has deliberately not prepared the pension papers and the petitioner has therefore filed the present petition.
3.7 Learned advocate, at this stage, submitted that the petitioner does not press reliefs prayed for in 7(B)(i) as the order of termination was withdrawn on 26.2.2003.
Page 7 of 18 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 14 20:57:32 IST 2022C/SCA/25924/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022 3.8 Learned advocate Mr.Oza, at this stage, has referred to the
documents which are placed on record. It is pointed out that in the pay slip issued by the respondent department, the employee's status is shown on record and it is also stated that benefit of 6 th pay commission is given to the petitioner. Thus, insistence on the part of the respondent for confirmation of the GPSC was misconceived.
3.9 Learned advocate Mr.Oza has placed reliance upon the order dated 18.10.2019 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.20185 of 2018 and it is contended that the issue involved in the present petition is covered by the said decision. At this stage, it is pointed out that the respondent-state preferred Letters Patent Appeal against the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.762 of 2020. It is submitted that the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.10.2020 dismissed the appeal filed by the state. It is submitted that thereafter the state preferred SLP No.1109 of 2022 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 18.2.2022 dismissed the SLP. Learned advocate, therefore, urged that the present petition be allowed and the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner be granted.
4. On the other hand, learned AGP has opposed this petition and referred to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent. It is submitted that though the petitioner was appointed as adhoc demonstrator Class III in microbiology subject vide order dated 20.1.1982, because of change in policy by UGC, by way of government resolution dated 12.10.1983 whereby the post of demonstrator is abolished and the persons who were working as demonstrator were treated as lecturers. However, the status of demonstrator was not Page 8 of 18 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 14 20:57:32 IST 2022 C/SCA/25924/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022 changed. Thus, when the petitioner was appointed as adhoc demonstrator, she was thereafter appointed as adhoc lecturer in view of change of policy. Thus, when the petitioner was not appointed on regular post of lecturer and was not selected by GPSC, her case is covered by the judgment dated 11.12.2002 given by Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.485 of 2002. It is further submitted that there is no discrimination as alleged by the petitioner. It is submitted that three persons who are referred by the petitioner in the memo of the petition were regularly appointed as demonstrators. Learned AGP has referred to the relevant documents in support of the said contention.
4.1 Learned AGP has thereafter, submitted that the state government, after its policy dated 23.6.2009 whereby options were given to adhoc lecturers to get absorbed in grant in colleges and decided to continue GPF account which was open qua the said adhoc lecturers. Thus, the petitioner was very well aware that her GPF which was opened will be closed. Learned AGP would thereafter submit that the petitioner filed petition in the year 1988 and because of the interim relief granted by this Court, her services were continued upto 2003 when the respondent terminated her services. Thus, when the petitioner is continued in service pursuant to the interim order, no benefit be given to her. Learned AGP has placed reliance upon the following decisions :
1. Vidyavardhaka Sangha and Another V/s Y.D.Deshpande and others, reported in (2006)12 SCC 482
2. Yogesh Mahajan V/s Professor R.C.Deka, Director All India Institute of Medical Sciences, reported in 2018(3) SCC 218
3. Satish Chandra Anand V/s The Union of India, reported in AIR 1953 SC 250.Page 9 of 18 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 14 20:57:32 IST 2022
C/SCA/25924/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022 Learned AGP therefore urged that this petition may not be entertained.
5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it would emerge that the petitioner is possessing qualification of M.Sc. Ph.d. in Microbiology. She was appointed as demonstrator in microbiology in respondent no.2 college on 20.1.1982. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the post of demonstrator is Class III post and she was selected after following due procedure of law. The name of the petitioner was forwarded by the employment exchange. Thereafter, the Selection Committee constituted by the government had taken the interview of the petitioner and others and thereafter the petitioner was selected on a substantive post. From the letter produced at Annexure `B' addressed by the Joint Secretary, GPSC to Additional Chief Secretary (Science and Technology) Education Department, it is clear that the original appointment of the petitioner does not fall within the jurisdiction of GPSC. Therefore, GPSC cannot give any information with regard to the same. It further transpires that because of the government resolution dated 12.10.1983, post of demonstrator was converted into the post of lecturer and as the petitioner was qualifying for such conversion, the post of demonstrator was treated as upgraded with retrospective effect from 12.10.1983. It further transpires that when the petitioner was apprehending that her services will be terminated, she filed petition being SCA No.1286 of 1988 before this Court and this Court granted ad-interim relief in favour of the petitioner which was thereafter confirmed till further orders. The said order was passed on 15.4.1988. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 11.12.2002 in Letters Patent Appeal No.485 of 2002 and allied matters in Page 10 of 18 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 14 20:57:32 IST 2022 C/SCA/25924/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022 the case of adhoc lecturers. The said order was against the concerned adhoc lecturers. It appears that because of the said order passed by the Division Bench, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated on 26.2.2003. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was not a party to the aforesaid proceedings before the Division Bench. On the contrary, the petition filed by the petitioner was pending since 1988 wherein this Court has granted protection to the petitioner. Thus, inspite of the interim order operating in favour of the petitioner, the respondent terminated her services. When the respondents realized the same, she was given appointment on 17.1.2004 and posted as lecturer in VP and RPTP Science College Vidyanagar. Thereafter, she was posted at Gujarat College where the post of lecturer in Microbiology was available.
6. It further transpires from the record that the respondent was deducting GPF of the petitioner till 2017. However, suddenly the respondent authority stopped deducting the GPF and in the meantime, the concerned respondent had attempted to retire the petitioner at the age of 58 years. It is relevant to note that at that time, the respondent department prepared the pension papers of the petitioner. When the petitioner pointed out that her retirement age is 62 years, she was continued in service. Once again, the respondent tried to retire the petitioner at the age of 60 years. At that time, the pension papers were prepared. Once again, the representation was made that the retirement age of the lecturer is 62 years and therefore considering the said legal position, the respondent could not retire the petitioner at the age of 60 years also. Thereafter, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation i.e. 62 years on 11.6.2020 at that time, she came to be retired. Thus, the petitioner has served for more than 38 years in government college and performed the duties as Head of Microbiology Department and she has performed duties at PG level.
Page 11 of 18 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 14 20:57:32 IST 2022C/SCA/25924/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022 From the documents placed on record, it is clear that the status of the petitioner is shown as regular in the pay slip and post is described as Class III post. Thus, when the petitioner was appointed on Class III post, the confirmation of the GPSC would not be required. Further, this Court has granted protection to the petitioner in the year 1988 which was continued upto 2003 when the services of the petitioner came to be terminated though the stay order was in operation. The fact remains that thereafter the petitioner withdrew the said petition with a view to file fresh petition. In the present petition which is filed in the year 2006, this Court has not granted any interim relief in favour of the petitoner, inspite of that, she was continued in service upto her age of superannuation i.e.11.6.2020. Thus, it is not open on the part of the respondent to contend that because of the interim relief granted by this Court, the petitioner was continued in service till she attained age of superannuation. When the respondent attempted to retire the petitioner at the age of 58 and 60 years, the respondents have prepared the pension papers. However, surprisingly, when she attains the age of superannuation i.e. 62 years in the year 2020, her pension papers were not prepared and the respondents have not granted any pensionary and other retiral benefits to her.
7. At this stage, this Court would like to refer the observation made by this Court in the order dated 18.10.2019 pased in Special Civil Application No.20185 of 2018. This Court observed in paragraphs 3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 5.2, 5.3 and 6 as under:
"3. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Lecturer on 10.3.1987 under Gujarat Education Services and was ordered to be posted at Sir Bhavsinhji Polytechnic Institute, Bhavnagar, whose appointment was made by the state government after undertaking process of selection. The appointment of the petitioner was on ad Page 12 of 18 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 14 20:57:32 IST 2022 C/SCA/25924/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022 hoc basis. The order of appointment inter alia provided that he would be continued until the regularly selected candidate from the Gujarat Public Service Commission was available or till the period of one year, whichever was earlier. On 31.3.1989, the petitioner became Lecturer and came to be appointed in the same college. This appointment was again on the similar terms as above.
3.1 It is the uncontrovered case of the petitioner that his services continued even after expiry of period of one year mentioned in the letter of appointment. It, however, appears that services of the petitioner came to be terminated on 4.9.1991. The petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 8994 of 1991 and this court granted interim relief on 26.12.1991 to the petitioner. The petitioner alongwith other similarly situated persons who are also relieved, came to be reinstated in service.
3.2 It appears that again on 28.1.2011 services of the petitioner came to be terminated which led the petitioner to file yet another Special Civil Application No. 1290 of 2011 alongwith other similarly situated persons. The said petition came to be disposed of on 7.9.2011 alongwith Letters Patent Appeal and other cognate petitions.
3.4 It is the case of the petitioner that he thereafter made representation on 30.11.2016. The petitioner was informed that guidance was sought from the Head Quarter. The petitioner made yet another representation on 9.2.2017, but nothing had been yielded. It is the specific case of the petitioner that similarly situated ad hoc Lecturers were granted the benefits of pension and other retirement benefits. Therefore, the present petition came to be filed with the prayers as above.
5.2 Thus, Rule 25(i) of the Rules provides that qualifying service shall include all services including services rendered on probation. It also includes services rendered in any capacity whether temporary or permanent, whether interrupted or continuous. The qualifying service, but, would not include the service rendered in the nonpensionable establishment or service rendered in contingencies or service rendered in daily-rated establishment. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner could rightly emphasise the group of words "whether temporary or permanent, interrupted or continuous" from the language of the Rules to submit that the petitioner's services would be included as per the Rules,within the Page 13 of 18 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 14 20:57:32 IST 2022 C/SCA/25924/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022 purview of qualifying service for pension.
5.3 In view of the above Rule-25 of Pension Rules 2002, temporary services are liable to be counted as pensionable. Even though the petitioner served as ad hoc for 30 years and 9 months, he was on the regular establishment entitled to get his services to be treated as pensionable. Rule 25 in terms says that qualifying service for pension include even interpreted services. Therefore, short breaks of 26 days and 5 months during the tenure of the services of the petitioner, would be in no way impead in counting the services of the petitioner to qualify as pensionable services.
6. As a result of the above discussion, the petitioner has to be treated as entitled for grant of pensionary and retiral benefits such as gratuity, leave encashment and those admissible to him on the basis of services of 30 years and 9 months which would be treated as qualifying service for pension and retirement benefits. The respondents are directed to finalise the pension case of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the present order and pay to the petitioner pension regularly alongwith other retirement dues admissible and payable to him. The arrears which may arise to be paid shall be paid within further period of two months."
8. Thereafter, the respondent state preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.762 of 2020 against the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 13.10.2020 dismissed the said petition. The Division Bench has observed in paragraph 2 as under:
"2. The learned Single Judge after considering the material on record came to the conclusion that in terms of Rule 25 of the Pension Rules, 2002, the temporary services were liable to be counted for determining the qualifying period of service and accordingly held that the writ petitioner (respondent herein) had worked for 30 years and 9 months and therefore he would be entitled to pension. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge as the same is in consonance with the statutory provisions."Page 14 of 18 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 14 20:57:32 IST 2022
C/SCA/25924/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022
9. Against the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the respondent state has preferred Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.1109 of 2002, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the said SLP and observed as under:
"It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continues service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare state, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand. In the present case, the High Court has not committed any error in directing the State to pay pensionary benefits to the respondent who has retired after rendering more than 30 years service. Hence, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed off"
10. In the case of Yogesh Mahajan (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 6 as under:
"6. It is settled law that no contract employee has a right to have his or her contract renewed from time to time. That being so, we are in agreement with the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court that the petitioner was unable to show any statutory or other right to have his contract extended beyond 30-6-2010. At best, the petitioner could claim that the authorities concerned should consider extending his contract. We find that in fact due consideration was given to this and in spite of a favourable recommendation having been made, the All India Institute of Medical Scienses did not find it appropriate or necessary to continue with his services on a contractural basis. We do not find any arbitrariness in the view taken by the authorities concerned and therefore reject this contention of the petitioner."
11. In Vidyavardhaka Sangha and another (supra), the Hon'ble Page 15 of 18 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 14 20:57:32 IST 2022 C/SCA/25924/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022 Supreme Court has held in paragraph 4 as under:
"4. It is now well-settled principle of law that the appointment made on probation/ad hoc basis for a specific period of time comes to an end by efflux of time and the person holding such post can have no right to continue on the post. In the instant case as noticed above, the respective respondents have accepted the appointment including the terms and conditions stipulated in the appointment orders and joined the posts in question and continued on the said posts for some years. The respondents having accepted the terms and conditions stipulated in the appointment order and allowed the period for which they were appointed to have been elapsed by efflux of time, they are not now permitted to turn their back and say that their appointments could not be terminated on the basis of their appointment letters nor they could be treated as temporary employees or on contract basis. The submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents to the said effect has no merit and is, therefore, liable to be rejected. It is also well-settled law by several other decisions of this Court that appointment on ad hoc basis/temporary basis comes to an end by efflux of time and persons holding such post have no right to continue on the post and ask for regularisation etc."
12. In the case of Satish Chandra Anand (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraphs 11 and 12 as under:
"11. Article 16(1) is equally inapplicable. The whole matter rests in contract. When the petitioner's first contract (the five year one) came to an end, he was not a permanent Government servant and Government was not bound either to re-employ him or to continue him in service. On the other hand, it was open to Government to make him the offer it did of a continuation of his employment on a temporary and contractual basis. Though the employment was continued, it was in point of fact, and in the eyes of law, under a new and fresh contract which was quite separate and distinct from the old even though many of its terms were the same. Article 16(1) deals with equality of opportunity in all matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. The petitioner has not been denied any opportunity of employment or of appointment. He has been treated just like any other person to whom an offer of temorary employment under these conditions Page 16 of 18 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 14 20:57:32 IST 2022 C/SCA/25924/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022 was made. His grievance, when analysed, is not one of personal differentiation but is against an offer of temporary employment on special terms as opposed to permanent employment. But of course the State can enter into contracts of temporary employment and impose special terms in each case, provided they are not inconsistent with the Constitution, and those who chose to accept those terms and enter into the contract are bound by them, even as the State is bound. When the employment is permanent there are certain statutory guarantees but in the absence of any such limitations Government is, subject to the qualification mentioned above, as free to make special contracts of service with temporary employees, engage in works of a temporary nature, as any other employer.
12. Various matters relating to the merits of the case were referred to but we express no opinion about whether the petitioner has other rights which he can enforce in other ways. We are dealing here with a writ under Art.32 to enforce a fundamental right and the only point we decide is that no fundamental right has been infringed."
13. This Court has considered the aforesaid decisions upon which the reliance is placed by learned AGP, however, in the facts of the present case, the said decisions would not be applicable. In the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the petitioner is appointed on the post of demonstrator after following due procedure. Her name was called from the employment exchange and the concerned selection committee constituted by the respondent state has taken the interview and the petitioner was selected. It is not in dispute that the said post was Class III post and therefore was not falling under the jurisdiction of GPSC. Thereafter, because of the policy of UGC, state government issued GR whereby post of demonstrator was converted into the post of lecturer. The petitioner was, therefore, appointed as lecturer and her services were continued for a period of 38 years and as observed hereinabove, the services were continued from 1982-1988. This Court, thereafter, granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner which was continued upto 2003.
Page 17 of 18 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 14 20:57:32 IST 2022C/SCA/25924/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2022 In the year 2003, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated though interim relief was in operation. The petitioner thereafter withdrew the said petition and after withdrawal, once again the petitioner was given appointment in the year 2004. After 2004, there was no interim relief which was operating in favour of the petitoner. Inspite of that, the services were continued till the petitoner attained the age of superannuation i.e. 62 years in the year 2020. Hence, the facts the present case are different.
14. Keeping in view the aforesaid order passed in similary type of matter being Special Civil Application No.20185 of 2018, if the facts of the present case are examined, this Court is of the view that the issue involved in the present petition is covered by the aforesaid orders.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, as the petitioner was working on the post of lecturer since 1983 and when the post of demonstrator/tutor was upgraded to the post of lecturer, she is entitled to get all the service benefits which are available to the lecturer. The petitioner is also entitled for pensionary and retiral benefits such as gratuity, leave encashment and those admissible to her on the basis of the service of 38 years. The respondents are directed to finalize the pension case of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order and pay the pension to the petitioner regularly. The arrears accrued shall be paid within a period of two months thereafter.
16. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J) SRILATHA Page 18 of 18 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 14 20:57:32 IST 2022