DEEPAK MISHRA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, three in number, employees of respondent No.2 Dr. Hari Singh Gour University (herein after referred to as 'University'), have approached this Court seeking a direction against the respondents to grant the benefit of Fifth Pay Commission recommendations with effect from 27.05.2000 in terms of the order dated 28.08.2000 and a direction against the respondents to calculate arrears of salary and payment thereof to the petitioners with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. A further direction is sought against the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners with retrospective effect. It is contended that after following the process of recruitment after taking a decision by the Executive Council of the University, the persons like petitioners were appointed as Class-III and Class-IV employees in the faculty of Management Studies. The initial appointment of the petitioners as made on 01.11.1997 was for 89 days.

(2.) However, later on after scrutiny of the cases of the petitioners, once again they were appointed on temporary basis on their respective posts. Again the said order was made for appointment of petitioners in the Department of Business Management of the University. As per the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyala Adhiniyam, 1973 (herein after referred to as 'Act of 1973'), a regular order of appointment was issued in respect of the petitioners appointing them on probation for two years. Such an order was issued on 30.03.1998. The petitioners were being paid the salary from the special fund of Business Administration Faculty of the University. In the order of appointment it was said that the appointment of the petitioners was likely to be made permanent on receipt of concurrence from the State Government. Since the petitioners were not being paid the salary, they made applications.

(3.) On receipt of the notices of the writ petition, respondent No.1 has filed a very short reply stating that for all sort of reliefs claimed by the petitioners, only the respondent University was responsible to pass the orders and since now it has been made a Central University, the respondent State is not in a position to take any action. A return has been filed by the respondent No.2 vehemently contending that the entire claim made by the petitioners is misconceived. According to respondent No.2, if any such resolution is passed by the Executive Council, it has lost its effects now in view of the fact that the respondent University has been declared a Central University under the Parliamentary Act. This being so, the resolution of the Executive Council of the erstwhile State University has lost its validity and no action whatsoever can be taken on the basis of such a resolution. It is contended that since the petitioners were never regularized, they are not to be given any benefit and as such the claim made in the petition is misconceived. According to the respondents, the petition itself is liable to be dismissed.