IQBAL PREET KAUR Vs. PANJAB UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the impugned speaking order dtd. 25/9/2017 (Annexure P-17) and all incidental proceedings passed by the respondents in withholding the benefits of Senior Scale/Selection Grade and Associate Professor Grade from due date to the petitioners, whereby the ad-hoc/temporary service period from 27/8/2001 to 10/7/2006, (including summer vacation break) followed by regular service w.e.f. 11/7/2006, is being ignored by the respondents; along with certain other prayers.

(2.) The facts in brief; as can be delineated from the writ petition; are that the petitioners had applied for the posts of Lecturer in Physics which were advertised on temporary basis as per the advertisement dtd. 1/6/2001 issued by respondent No.4. The petitioners participated in the process of selection. Both the petitioners were selected through a due process and accordingly they were issued appointment letters on 27/8/2001. They joined their duties pursuant to the appointment letter w.e.f. 27/8/2001 only. The petitioners continued in the same capacity for about six years. Thereafter, the respondent- college issued another advertisement dtd. 16/5/2006 vide which the posts were advertised on permanent basis. The petitioners again applied for the said post. Having undergone the process of selection, the petitioners were selected for the said posts and the appointment orders were issued to them on 19/9/2006. Since the petitioners were already continuing in their temporary appointments, therefore, pursuant to these appointment letters they entered into their permanent appointment. Since they were already continuing on temporary basis, therefore, after joining in permanent capacity, both the petitioners prayed for continuation of their previous service for the purpose of pay protection and grant of increment. Vide order dtd. 3/3/2011 (Annexure P-8), that benefit was also granted to the petitioners. Accordingly, the pay of the petitioners was fixed vide order dtd. 21/11/2012, which has been attached with the petition as Annexure P-9. The regulations issued by the University Grant Commission (UGC) as a scheme of upgradation of pay scales of the teachers; vide notification of the year 1998, are attached with the petition as Annexure P-15. As per this notification the Lecturers are entitled to Senior Scale on completion of six years of service and are further entitled to Selection Grade on completion of further five years' service in Senior Scale. Since both the petitioners had completed about 14 years of service as lecturer, therefore, they requested the authorities to grant them from due date the Senior Scale, as well as, the Selection Grade; by counting their past service rendered on temporary basis. That request of the petitioners was recommended; by respondent No.4-College to respondents No.2 and 3; to be granted in favour of the petitioners. However, vide order dtd. 9/11/2015 the said request has been declined by respondents No.2 and 3 on the ground that there was a break in service of the petitioners, immediately before their regular appointments and that their regular appointments were not in continuity with their earlier ad-hoc/contractual service. Hence, they are not covered under the relevant clause of the above said regulations of the UGC.

(3.) Arguing the case, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the service of the petitioners has been continuous since the year 2001. The said service continued till the petitioners joined in their regular capacity. Although the respondent-College used to infuse artificial breaks in the service of the petitioners during summer vacations and before the start of the new sessions, just to save the salary for that period, however, the service of the petitioners were never terminated in terms of their temporary appointments. Therefore, for all legal purposes, the service of the petitioners is continuous throughout. The counsel has further submitted that even if there was some break, as perceived by respondents No.2 and 3, that also stood condoned by the fact that the respondents themselves have counted the previous service of the petitioners for the purpose of pay protection and the grant of the annual increments. The counsel has also submitted that although the respondents are referring to the alleged break in service from 1/4/2006 till 10/7/2006, however, even this break was only an artificial break of summer vacations and before start of the new session. The service of the petitioners was never terminated before the start of their regular service. It was only that the petitioners were not paid salary for this period. Although, the order of regular appointment was issued by the respondent- College w.e.f. 19/9/2006, a date on which the petitioners were actually working on temporary basis in continuation of their earlier service, however, the appointment of the petitioners on regular basis have been shown in record with effect from retrospective date of 11/7/2006. But the fact remains that the petitioners were appointed on permanent basis vide appointment letters dtd. 19/9/2006 and the petitioners were working in temporary capacity immediately before that on 18/9/2006. Hence, as a matter of fact, there is no break in service of the petitioners, immediately preceding their appointment on regular basis. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to their temporary service being counted towards grant of the Senior Scale and the Selection Grade. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by this court in the case of Rupinder Kaur Versus State of Punjab and others, passed in CWP No.9922 of 2013 on 21/4/2016, to contend that the artificial breaks in the service cannot be interpreted to the prejudice of an employee.