http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VIJAY VASANTRAO DESHPANDS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       27/08/1998

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, S. RAJENDRA BABU

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: J A D G M E N T Nanavati. J. The State of Maharastr is challenging in this appeal the order passed by the Maharastra  Administrative  Tribunal in O.A.No.125/93. The  respondent  was  appointed  as  a  Lecturer  in Statistics and Demography in SRTC Medical College, Ambejogai on 14-11-79.    He  was  appointed initially for a period of four months purely on  adhoc  basis  and  till  a  regularly selected candidate  was available.  However, the appointment continued from year to year  without  any  break  for  eight years.  Meanwhile,  he  also obtained phd.D.  in Statistics. On completion of eight years of service, the respondent made representations   to   the   concerned    authorities    for regularising  his  services  and to grant him the benefit of higher pay-scale under University Grants  Commission  Scheme for  merit  promotion  of Teachers working under post partum programme.  As his representations  were  not  accepted,  he approached   the  Tribunal  and  sought  the  following  two reliefs:         "(A)  By issue of an appropriate order  or         direction   Respondents   No.  1  &  2  be         directed  regularise   the   services   of         applicant    with    awarding   permanancy         benefits.         (B) By issue of an  appropriate  order  or         directed  the  respondents  No.1  &  2  be         directed  to  award  pay  scale  of   RPS.         3700/5700     under    University    Grant         Commission’s Scheme for merit promotion of         Teachers   working   under   post   partum         programme   with   fixation   of  pay  and         retrospective effect i.e.  14-11-87." In support of  his  claim  for  regularisation,  the respondent had relied upon the G.O.  dated 19-9-75 issued by the State  of  Maharastra.   The Tribunal held that the said Government resolution was not applicable to  the  respondent as  it applied only to those employees who were appointed on temporary basis and  were  not  made  permanent  because  of non-availability of permanent posts.  The Tribunal, however,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

relying  upon  the Governments letter dated 5.3.85 held that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of the University Grants Commission’s Scheme for merit promotion  of  teachers working  under  post  partum  programme  from  the  date  he completed eight years of continuous service.  With  tribunal directed the  Government to consider his case.  This order’s correctness is  challenged  by  the  State  of  Maharashtra, Director  of  Medical  Education  and  Dean  of  CRT Medical College. Learned counsel for the  appellants  contended  that the Tribunal has misconstrued the letter dated 5-3-85 issued by the Government of India and thus wrongly given benefit of the aforesaid scheme to the respondent.  Having gone through the  said letter, we are of the opinion that this contention deserves to be accepted.  The first paragraph  of  the  said letter reads as follows :         "The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare         have been taking  steps  in  the  past  to         bring the status of the teachers and staff         working under the Post Barium Programme at         par  with  those  working  in other Health         Departments but many complaints have  been         received  from  various  medical  colleges         regarding stagnation of the staff  leading         to  frustration  of the persons working in         the Post Partum Centres." In the said letter, it is further  stated  that  the benefit  was  to  be  extended  to  those  who fulfilled the conditions mentioned in that letter.  One such condition was that  the  incumbent  should  have  completed  8  years   of continous service in the respective cadre as Lecturer/Reader in the  Post  Partum  Programm.    Though the said condition itself did not clarify  that  Lectures  appointed  on  adhoc basis  were  mot  to  be extended the said benefit but if we read  that  condition  alongwith  the  first  paragraph,  it becomes  clear  that  what was intended by the Government of India was to extend the benefit of the said scheme to  those Lecturers only  who  were  regularly appointed.  The purpose for which the said letter was issued was stated in the first paragraph of that letter.  The Government  wanted  to  bring the  status  of  teachers  and  staff working under the Post Parum Programme at part with the teachers and staff  working in other departments.  In other departments, as disclosed by the  said  Resolution  could  have  been given only to those employees who  were  appointed  regularly  or  on  temporary basis.   The said benefit was not extended to those teachers who were appointed on adhoc basis.  If the  reading  of  the letter  dated 5.3.85 by the Tribunal is accepted as correct, the result would be that the teachers  appointed  under  the post  partum  Programme  would  get  the  benefit of the UGC Scheme for promotion even through their appointment  was  on adhoc basis whereas the teachers appointed on adhoc basis in any other  department  would  not  have  that benefit.  That could not have been the intention of the Government do India and, therefore, the letter dated 5.3.85 cannot  be  read  in that manner.    Condition No.4 contained in that letter will have to be read to  mean  that  the  incumbent  should  have completed  8 years of continuous regular service after being appointed on the post of Lecturer/Reader.   Admittedly,  the respondent  was not a regularly appointed person inasmuch as he was appointed on adhoc basis.  His appointment was by way of Stop Gap arrangement as it was to last till  a  regularly appointed candidate became available.  He had appeared twice in the examination subsequent to his appointment but on both the occasions, he had failed.  Under the circumstances, only

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

a  direction  to the authorities to consider the case of the respondent for regularization could have been granted.   The Tribunal   committed   a   grave   error  in  directing  the authorities to give him the benefit of UGC  merit  promotion scheme. We,  therefore,  partly  allow  this  appeal and set aside that part of the judgment thereby prayer ’B’ has  been granted.   The  State Government shall now consider the case of the respondent for  regularization  within  a  period  of three months from today. No order as to costs.