AVINASH CHANDRA NAGPAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MP.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the post of Casualty Medical Officer was up-graded on 16.8.1971 and the pay scale of 'that post became at par with that of Lecturer in Medical College. Thereafter vide Annexure A-20 dated 20.7.1989 the nomenclature of the post of Casualty Medical Officer (CMO) was changed and the Casualty Medical Officer was denoted as Lecturer, Medical College. Shri Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner by inviting my attention to Annexure A-13, which is an order of the State Government, Public Health & Family Welfare Department dated 4.4.1987 has submitted that the services of the petitioner were taken on the post of Lecturer, Medical College on ad-hoc basis and in pursuance to the rules, namely, M.P. Regularisation of Ad- hoc Appointment Rules, 1986 (in short 'the Rules'), the services of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer, Medical College were regularised w.e.f. 4.4.1987 (Annexure A-13). The contention is that indeed it should have been from 11.8.1971, i.e. the date on which the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Casualty Medical Officer.

(2.) ON the other hand, Shri V.P. Nema, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 3 and Shri Hemant Shrivastava appearing for respondent No. 2 Public Service Commission have argued that according to rule 12 of the Rules, the seniority would be provided from the date of regular appointment. Since the services of the petitioner were regularised vide Annexure A-13 on 4.4.1987, therefore, rightly he has been given seniority w.e.f. this date. Shri Hemant Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 PSC, has placed heavy reliance on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Dr. J.S. Chhabra v. State of M.P. and others 1997 (2) JLJ 37 = (1997) 3 SCC.203.

(3.) IF the aforesaid rule is tested on the anvil of the present factual scenario, it would reveal that the petitioner was rightly given seniority w.e.f. 1987 when his services were regularised vide Annexure A-13 dated 4.4.1987. it would be germane to place reliance on the decision in the case of Dr. J.S. Chhabra (supra) wherein, in similar facts and circumstances the apex Court in para has held as under :