LATA SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard finally.

(2.) This Petition is preferred against the order dtd. 24/6/2017 (Annexure P-1) seeking grant of annual increment for a period commencing from 23/8/1991 to 15/12/2008 to the Petitioner, who was working on the post of Lab Technician on ad hoc basis as also for fixation of proper salary after grant of annual increment with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay.

(3.) The facts of the case in nut-shell are that the Petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Lab Technician (Geography) against the sanctioned vacant post in Government College at Gadai, Kawardha vide order dtd. 27/7/1991. The services of the Petitioner were regularized vide order dtd. 15/12/2008 and during the period between 23/8/1991 and 15/12/2008, the Petitioner had rendered her services on having been appointed on ad hoc basis. The State of Madhya Pradesh, in the light of the judgment rendered in the matter of Dr. PL Malik vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (1991) MPLSR 475) has issued a circular dtd. 8/1/1993 and decided that benefit of annual increment shall also accrue in favour of ad hoc employees and similar circulars have also been issued on 12/5/1993, 18/8/1993 and 25/10/1993 whereby, the State Government has further directed that the employees appointed under Class-III and IV category in the Department of Higher Education are also entitled for grant of annual increment. Since the State has never issued any notification/circular or order suspending or staying the operation of the circulars dtd. 08/1/1993, 18/8/1993 or 25/10/1993, therefore, the right of the Petitioner to get annual increment on the basis of the said circulars is still alive, but she was deprived of the same for the said period. A similarly situated Lab Technician namely Ku. Ragini Verma had filed a Petition before the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') on 4/7/2001 in O.A No.384/2001 in whose favour, the Tribunal has passed an award granting increment, however, the said order was not challenged and the same has attained finality. On a similar footing, other Petitioners namely Alok Kumar Rai and Premlal Patel have preferred W.P(S) Nos.3699/17 and 3712/2017 respectively wherein, the Respondent/authority has been directed to examine the issue in parity of the case of Ku. Ragini Verma and it was also directed that in case the benefit has been extended to Ku. Ragini Verma, then a suitable order has to be passed in respect of the Petitioners therein. Similarly, Satyanarayan Singh, Lab Technician had also preferred W.P(S) No.5958/2011 and this Court has passed order dtd. 18/12/2013 considering the fact that the State has not challenged the order passed in favour of Ku. Ragini Verma. On the contrary, the order passed by the Tribunal on 4/7/2001 was complied with and regular increment has been granted to Ku. Ragini Verma from the date of her initial appointment and further, a direction has been issued and similar treatment has been extended in favour of Satyanarayan Singh also. Thereafter, the State, considering the said case, vide order dtd. 19/1/2016 (Annexure P-24), granted annual increment to Satyanarayan Singh for his service rendered during ad hoc period in the light of the decision rendered in the case of Ku. Ragini Verma. The Petitioner herein had earlier filed a Petition before this Court by way of W.P(S) No.5031/2016 and this Court, vide order dtd. 17/2/2017, has issued a direction to decide her representation and the said representation has been dismissed vide order dtd. 24/6/2017 by mentioning that the case of the Petitioner was different as there were service breaks.