Ram Niwas Awasthi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Others

In this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks followings reliefs :-

“1. That, respondents may kindly be directed to treat the petitioner in employment since the year 1981 and for fixing the seniority and increment

petition be granted notional benefit from this year.

That, the action of the respondents which denying the benefit may kindly be declare illegal.

That, any other relief which this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit, with cost of the petitionâ€​.

Grievance of the petitioner is that he be treated in employment since the date of initial appointment i.e. from the year 1981 as has been extended to the

similarly situated employees.

Briefs facts leading to filing of this case are that petitioner was initially appointed as Teacher purely on temporary basis vide order dated 27/02/1981

(Annexure P-1). He continued to work till March 1983 and thereafter he was discontinued from service. After discontinuation, new Teachers were

appointed in place of the petitioner who have been granted all the service benefits. Vide order dated 08/12/1989, similarly situated employees were

treated in employment since their initial date of appointment. Being aggrieved, petitioner and other similarly situated employees filed original application

before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal Bench, Gwalior (M.P.) which was disposed of with the direction to the respondents that they shall

examine the case of applicants in the light of government policy and also in the light of directions made in the said order and if they have duly applied

and are found fit for appointment by the selection Committee and fulfill the required standard of eligibility, they shall be appointed in the available

vacancies as on today. It was further directed that in case it is not possible they shall be reappointed subject to selection by the Statutory Committee

and availability of the posts. Thereafter, they were reinstated/appointed vide order dated 05/07/1995 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner looking his future

in service submitted an application for counting earlier period in employment as regular service, the period which he was kept away from employment

by the respondents without any just or proper reason. The aforesaid application was forwarded by the District Education Officer, Shivpuri (M.P.) to

the Director Public Instructions, Bhopal vide letter dated 04/02/2002 alongwith all the necessary documents and with the rider that petitioner claims

notional benefit only. The said application was not decided and the petitioner was made to run from pillar to post. However, respondents extended

benefit to similarly situated employees, hence, petitioner has preferred this petition before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that various similarly situated teachers had approached before Bench of this Court and thereafter Civil

Appeal was filed before the Apex Court which was disposed of with a direction to count the service of the employees in accordance with

fundamental Rules 17. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision taken by the Public Directorate of Public Instructions in different

districts which are annexed as (Annexure P-12), (Annexure P-13) and (Annexure P-14). In the light of aforesaid decisions, the petitioner is also

entitled for counting or treating the period from 1981 to 1995 as per Fundamental Rule 17.

On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that initial appointment of the petitioner was only

adhoc and discontinued in the year 1983 itself. However, in the light of direction issued by the learned Tribunal in OA No. 44/1994, the case of the

petitioner was scrutinized by the duly constituted Committee and he was granted fresh appointment with effect from 05/07/1995, therefore, petitioner

can not claim continuity in service on the basis of fresh appointment issued in the year 1995. The petition is devoid of any merit or substance,

therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Admittedly, the respondents vide order dated 24/01/2014 (Annexure P-12) had taken a decision in the light of Apex Court order with regard to

employees who were initially terminated but subsequently reappointed following Fundamental Rule 17 with the condition that period from the date of

termination till the date of reappointment of the employee, shall be counted for the purpose of treating them in regular employment but shall not be

entitled for salary and other allowance on the basis of principle of “No Work No Payâ€. From bare perusal of (Annexure P-14) dated 15/03/2016,

it can be seen that the respondents have extended the benefits of counting of service to similarly situated employee of other districts on the principle of

“No Work No Payâ€​.

In view of the aforegoing discussion and in the facts and circumstances of the case, respondents are directed to extend the benefit to the petitioner as

has been extended to the similarly situated employee by counting period from 1981 to 1995 as per Fundamental Rules 17 for the purpose of treating

the petitioner in employment and pass necessary order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed

today. The petitioner shall also entitle for consequential benefits from that date. The consequential benefits be extended to the petitioner within a

period of three months thereafter. The petition stands allowed to the extent indicated herein above. No order as to cost.