DALIP SINGH JAMWAL Vs. UNIVERSITY OF JAMMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is working as Reader in the University of Jammu, Jammu. In this writ petition, he is seeking writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing communication dated 12.7.2003, whereby respondents have rejected the representation of the petitioner for placing him as Senior Scale Lecturer in Mathematics with effect from 16.1.1991 instead of 17.8.1993. In addition to this, he is also seeking writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner's date of placement as Senior Scale Lecturer in Mathematics as 16.1.1991 instead of 17.8.1993, as he had completed five years service on 16.1.1991 and in consequence thereof petitioner has also prayed that he be paid the arrears of pay and allowances on account of difference in pay and allowance on his placement as Senior Scale Lecturer w.e.f. 16.1.1991, till his promotion as Reader on 7.8.2002 and further to direct the respondents to release arrears of pay on account of difference of salary and allowances for the period w.e.f. 16.1.1986 to 12.6.1987 in view of the revision in pay scale of Lecturer from Rs. 700 -1600 to Rs. 2200 -75 -2800 -100 -4000, as recommended by University Grants Commission.

(2.) AT the hearing of this petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confined his argument only in regard to placement of the petitioner as Senior Scale Lecturer in Mathematics w.e.f. 16.1.1991 instead of 17.8.1993 and also for payment of difference of pay and allowances in the event of change of date of placement.

(3.) VIDE judgment dated 14.3.1995, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, petitioner filed Letters Patent Appeal (i.e.LPA (SW) No. 142/95). Vide judgment dated 1.4.1996, the appeal was allowed only to the extent that he was held entitled to the salary for the period he was given fictional breaks in service. He was also held entitled to counting of this period for the purpose of seniority so far as the allotment of staff quarter to him in the University was concerned. The relevant part of the order passed by LPA Bench on 1.4.1996 reads: 'We have considered the matter carefully. A look at Annexure P -14 dated 26.12.1994 demonstrates that the period spent on adhoc service is to be counted, if continuous and followed by regular appointment. It is pointed out that since the petitioner had breaks in service, this period of adhoc service cannot be counted with the regular service rendered by the appellant -petitioner. It appears that the University has recorded fictional breaks in the service of the petitioner at two times, namely, from 13.6.1987 to 10.9.1987 and from 18.6.1988 to 21.8.1988. In addition to this there appears to be a gap between 17.6.1988 till the date he joined the substantive service as Lecturer. However, the fact remains that the petitioner had been approved for regular service on and from 17.6.1988 by the University. The result therefore is that the petitioner (appellant) is deemed to be in continuous service throughout from 16.1.1986 to 22.8.1988. Consequently, he is entitled to salary for the period he is given fictional breaks. (See AIR 1987 SC 478, Rattan Lai and Ors. etc. etc. v. State ofHaryana and Ors.). He is also entitled to counting of this period for purpose of seniority so far as the allotment of staff quarter to him in the University is concerned. Since the petitioner succeeds on the first point, the University will consider his case for the allotment of staff quarter. The salary, for break period be paid in two months, the allotment of staff quarter be made within a week from today.'