Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: gpsc in Vinod Jasmatbhai Rupapara vs State Of Gujarat on 20 October, 2022Matching Fragments
"1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Utkarsh Sharma learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent State.
2. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.
3. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed to direct the respondents to consider the ad-hoc tenure of service of the petitioners as continuous for all purposes by clubbing that period with the period post the selection of the petitioners by the GPSC for the purposes of pay, leave, pension and other consequential service benefits and grant of pay protection.
3.4 Mr.Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner, would rely on an interim order dated 27.10.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No.6312 of 2021. Mr.Dave, learned counsel, would also rely on the Government Resolution dated 24.04.1993 passed by the General Administrative Department of the State of Gujarat which provided for counting of services rendered on an adhoc basis by lecturers who were subsequently selected for regular appointment through the GPSC. Relying on para 2(a) and 2(b), Mr.Dave, learned counsel, would submit that a resolution was specifically passed that those employees who were initially appointed on adhoc basis and then were subsequently selected through the GPSC selection, if there is no break in service rendered during adhoc period, the same should be treated as continuous for all purposes. Mr.Dave, learned counsel, would also rely for the same purpose on the Government Resolution dated 03.07.1998.
3.5 Mr.Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner, laid a special emphasis on the Government Resolution dated 03.08.2011. He would submit that this resolution was passed regularizing past adhoc services rendered by 111 lecturers in Government Colleges. He would submit that if the contents of the resolution are read, they would indicate that even where the GPSC had objection to the regularization of such services, the State had despite such objection observed that such services of 111 lecturers ought to be regularized. Mr.Dave, learned counsel, would submit by relying on an order dated 30.01.2006 in the case of one Ms.Shweta P. Dave, who in C/SCA/7051/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/10/2022 the same college, namely, the L.D. Engineering College, Ahmedabad, was working on an adhoc basis and her past services were regularized for the purposes of clubbing it with the subsequent regular service. Reliance was also placed on an order dated 15.03.2001 in the case of one Shrimati Asha M. Joshi, who was an Assistant Professor in the L.D.Engineering College, who got the benefits of continuity of adhoc service rendered prior to her GPSC selection. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 20185 of 2018 and Special Civil Application No. 19042 of 2017 and the provisions of Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, where adhoc services were not considered for the purposes of pension. He would further submit that the relief as prayed for be granted.
4.4 Mr.Kurven Desai, learned AGP, relied on a decision as far as recovery is concerned in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana vs. Jagdev Singh., reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267., to submit that once the petitioner had given an undertaking, she cannot now turn around and challenge the orders of recovery.
4.5 In rejoinder to this, Mr.Dave, learned C/SCA/7051/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/10/2022 counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the communications of the GPSC are read out of context. The Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal was dealing with the right of the adhoc lecturers being continued in service and it was in this context that the communication of the GPSC has to be read. It is undisputed that by the resolution of 03.08.2011, lecturers like the petitioner who had continued to be in adhoc service without any break got the benefit of continuity of their past services. The stand of the department therefore is misconceived. 5 Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates, as far as the first issue with regard to the legality of the recovery order dated 01.04.2021 is concerned, perusal of the impugned order indicates that reference is made to a communication dated 19.03.2015, letter dated 16.08.2019 and letter dated 18.07.2020. As far as the communication dated 19.03.2015 is concerned, the same has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 15.04.2015 in Special Civil Application No. 6549 of 2015. The other communications of 2019 and 2020 indicated that recovery proceedings are to be initiated in respect of those lecturers to whom the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission had been granted without approval of the State Government. Such lecturers have not initiated any legal proceedings in the Court of Law. What is evident on reading the order of recovery is that it seeks to recover the benefits granted to the petitioner of the 6th Pay Commission which the petitioner has earned for having worked for a period from 01.01.2006 to 2009. Independent of the communications referred to in the impugned order, even if the stand of the respondents is accepted that they were paid erroneously for which reliance has been placed C/SCA/7051/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/10/2022 on a communication dated 20.07.2019 and February 2015, what is evident is that, in case of the petitioner the payscales were granted and the same was verified by the verification authorities as is evident from the pay verification communication dated 27.05.2011 (Annexure'E', page 32 of the petition).