Ad-Hoc Appointment As Lecturer Cannot Be Considered For Eligibility Of Senior Pay Scale Under CAS: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah has held that services rendered in an ad-hoc appointment as Lecturer before being appointed as Assistant Professor on a regular basis cannot be counted for determining the eligibility for the grant of the senior pay scale under the 'Career Advancement Scheme' (CAS).As per the CAS notified on July 22, 1988 by the...
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah has held that services rendered in an ad-hoc appointment as Lecturer before being appointed as Assistant Professor on a regular basis cannot be counted for determining the eligibility for the grant of the senior pay scale under the 'Career Advancement Scheme' (CAS).
As per the CAS notified on July 22, 1988 by the Union Government, a revision in the pay scale of teachers in the universities and colleges was made with effect from January 1, 1986. Every lecturer was placed on a senior scale of Rs. 3000-5000 if the person had completed eight years of service after a regular appointment. Subsequently, the Rajasthan government implemented the CAS.
On September 7, 1977, the University of Udaipur (later bifurcated as Rajasthan Agricultural University) (petitioner) designated teachers holding the post of Junior Lecturers or equivalent post as Lecturers in terms of a notification dated July 2, 1974. Subsequently, in the Board of Management meeting dated November 24, 1988, the Rajasthan Agricultural University resolved to give the revised University Grant Commission pay scales to Lecturers and Research Assistants. It further resolved to designate Lecturers and Research Assistants as 'Assistant Professors'.
In the instant case, respondents no. 1 to 9 served on as Lecturers on ad-hoc basis in different educational institutions including the Rajasthan Agricultural University before being appointed as Assistant Professors on a regular basis.
The Rajasthan Agricultural University issued a notification dated May 4, 1989 stating that those selected Lecturers and Research Assistants would be designated as Assistant Professors with effect from January 1, 1973. A request was made to the Rajasthan government to approve the November 24 resolution.
Later, the Rajasthan government on March 27, 1991 wrote to the university directing that the resolution designated Research Assistant and Lecturer as Assistant Professor be rescinded and only extend the benefit of the CAS to those Assistant Professors directly selected after regular selection through the Statutory Selection Commission.
The respondents had first approached the Rajasthan High Court praying that their ad-hoc appointment should be considered while determining their eligibility for the CAS. The single judge of the high court extended the benefit of CAS to them. This was affirmed by the division bench of the High Court relying on the judgment of State of Rajasthan v Milap Chand Jain (2013) wherein it was held that the lecturer working on ad-hoc basis prior to regular appointment shall be entitled to count the entire period of ad-hoc service for the purpose of extending CAS benefit.. However, Milap Chand judgment was disposed of by the Supreme Court which relied on its judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Dr Suresh Chand Agarwal (2011). However, Dr Suresh judgment was dismissed in limine, leaving the question of law open.
Subsequently, review petitions filed in Dr. Suresh Chand's judgment were dismissed in 2011 by the Supreme Court. Thereafter, in Milap Chand, the Rajasthan government moved the Supreme Court in respect of the same impugned order therein, against which appeals stood previously dismissed by the court.
In this case, the court noted that the Rajasthan government through a letter dated September 20, 1994 had specifically clarified that the period of ad-hoc service rendered by the Assistant Professors shall not be counted for extending senior pay scale benefit under CAS.
The court relied on its decision in another tagged petition that CAS is in a nature of policy and the respondents cannot claim or have any vested right to claim that the policy should be interpreted in a particular manner.
It said: “Such an interpretative exercise would have to be left, in the domain of the appellant, subject to the State Government's directives unless patently perverse or arbitrary. The High Court, hence, was not justified in counting of the ad-hoc service rendered by the respondents for reckoning the period of computation as required for applying the CAS.”
The court added that no recovery of money should be made from the respondents. It concluded: “The respondents shall be entitled to the notional benefit of the pay and emoluments for purposes of calculating their retiral/service conditions and for post-retiral benefits, but without grant of any benefit under the CAS. It is clarified that if the respondents are entitled to benefits under CAS after reckoning eight years of service from the date(s) of their regular appointment or to benefits under any other Scheme/Policy, the State Government or the appellant shall not deny such an advantage to them by virtue of this judgment alone.”
Case details: Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Through its Registrar v. Dr. Zafar Singh Solanki & Ors
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 555