SAROJ GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as a Lecturer on ad hoc basis by the Department of Collegiate Education on 8.11.1983 for a period of six months on a fixed salary of Rs. 700/- which is equivalent to initial pay in the pay-scale of Rs. 700-1600. Thereafter, periodically she was given ad hoc appointments for terms of six months each in the years 1984 and 1985 also, on the fixed salary of Rs. 700/-. The petitioner's services were regularised by order dated 10.3.1987. under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointments Rules. 1986, ("Rules" for short) and the petitioner was extended the benefit of pay-scale of Rs. 700-40-1100-50-1300-EB-50-1600.

(2.) FOURTEEN years later, the petitioner approached the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench in OA No. 2706/2001 seeking grant of increments for the ad-hoc period of service i.e. from 8.11. 1983 to 10.3.1987, the Tribunal rejected the claim by order dated 17.1.2002 following its earlier order dated 12.7.2001 in OA No. 1880/2001. Smi. Fahmida Bano v. State of M.R. and the order of the Indore Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 1355/2000, Dr. Smt. Nasreen Rehman Sheikh v. State of M.R both on merits and on the ground of limitation. The Tribunal refused to follow its decision in TA No. 1547/1988, Dr. P.L. Malik v. State of M.P. decided on 30.7.1990 relied upon by the petitioner, on the ground that the said order was rendered by a Bench which was not duly constituted. The order dated 17.1.2002 of the Tribunal is under challenge in this petition.

(3.) THE petitioner accepted her regularisation under the M.P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointment Rules. 1986 (for short the Regularisation Rules') with effect from that date with her initial pay at Rs. 700/- in the pay-scale of Rs. 700-1600 without protest. She did not demand that her pay should be fixed at any higher stage in the pay-scale, by counting the period of ad hoc service for grant of increments. She never claimed the benefit of increments for the ad hoe employment period (1983-87). Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to claim for the first time, in an application filed on 10.9.2001, increments for the period between 1983 to 1987. The application was liable to be rejected on the ground of limitation.