SAROJ SAXENA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER who is working as a Tracer in the Office of Commissioner, Chambal Division, Gwalior feels aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not granting her seniority with effect from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 30 -6 -1983, instead granting it with effect from 5 -5 -1992 on the ground that she is regularised in service from the said date.

(2.) PETITIONER joined services in the Office of Commissioner, Chambal Division, Gwalior on 30 -61983. It is her case that she had continued in service with utmost sincerity and devotion. On 24 -6 -1986 she had proceeded on maternity leave when she was terminated from service without giving her any opportunity of hearing and without following the principles of natural justice. Feeling aggrieved thereof, petitioner challenged the termination by filing an application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act before the State Administrative Tribunal, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior and the Tribunal by its order dated 30 -4 -1992 Annexure A -l directed for reinstatement of the petitioner and payment of salary with arrears of backwages. Accordingly, in compliance thereof it is stated by the petitioner that Respondent No. 2 passed the order of reinstatement so also granted backwages vide Annexure A -2 dated 21 -10 -1992. It is the case of the petitioner that contrary to the directives issued by the Tribunal without following the mandate of the Tribunal, Respondent No. 2 passed an order on 6 -11 -1993 vide Annexure A -4 regularising reappointing the petitioner with effect from 5 -5 -1992. It is the case of the petitioner that this order passed by the Respondent No. 2 is clearly illegal. Petitioner having been reinstated in service in accordance with the directives of the Tribunal, the question of granting her appointment with effect from 5 -5 -1992 it is stated deserves to be quashed. Petitioner, therefore, submits a representation vide Annexure A -5 on 26 -11 -1993 and the said representation cum appeal has been ultimately rejected by the respondents on 19 -3 -1996.

(3.) REFUTING the aforesaid, Smt. Ami Prabal, learned counsel appearing for the State argued that petitioner was granted appointment vide Annexure R -l on 29th of June, 1983 in pursuance to which she joined services on 30th of June, 1983. The said appointment was a temporary appointment for a period of one year. It was specifically stated that the petitioner's appointment to the post was without following the procedure contemplated under the Recruitment Rules and it was an ad hoc appointment. Respondents admit that services of the petitioner were terminated but after the order passed by the Tribunal vide Annexure A -l on 30 -4 -1992 she was reinstated in service on ad hoc basis with a further stipulation that her case shall be considered for regularisation as per rules. It is the case of the respondents that the Tribunal had only interfered with the termination of services of the petitioner and the Tribunal had not granted any relief of regular appointment. Reinstatement and consequential benefit by the Tribunal was on the same terms and conditions that were existing prior to her termination in the year 1986. However, in view of a circular dated 9 -1 -1990 issued by the State Government wherein it was decided to refer the cases of all such employees who are appointed prior to 31 -12 -1988 for regularisation to a Screening Committee. It is stated by the respondents that on the basis of recommendations by the Screening Committee, petitioner was regularised with effect from 5 -5 -1992. It is, therefore, the case of the respondents that as the petitioner's initial appointment was not in accordance with rules and as she had been regularised on the basis of a circular issued by the State Govt., she is entitled to seniority in the cadre only from 5 -5 -1992. Smt. Ami Prabal, learned counsel for the State argued that the initial appointment of the petitioner being contrary to the rules of recruitment, petitioner cannot get any benefit of the said appointment nor can her seniority be counted from the said date. Accordingly, it is stated that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present petition.