Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the State of Maharashtra challenging the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated December 14, 2018, which allowed Original Application No. 632/2016. The Original Application was filed by 29 employees working on various teaching and non-teaching posts in Government Tribal Industrial Training Institutes. The employees sought counting of their contractual services from the dates of their initial appointments for all purposes except monetary benefits. The State Government had introduced a Scheme in 2004 for vocational training to tribal youths, and the employees were appointed on contract basis for 11-month periods, with extensions. In 2014, the State decided to regularise the Scheme and issued a Government Resolution on July 8, 2014, regularising the employees' services with effect from April 1, 2014, but prospectively. The employees approached the Tribunal seeking counting of their prior contractual service for continuity and other benefits. The Tribunal allowed the application, directing that the services rendered before regularisation be counted for continuity and consequential service benefits except monetary benefits. The State challenged this order, arguing that regularisation was prospective and that past contractual service could not be counted. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, holding that the employees had continued in service without break and that regularisation did not erase their past service. The Court relied on precedents including the Supreme Court's decision in Prem Singh v. State of U.P. and others, (2019) 10 SCC 516, and held that past service, even if contractual, must be counted for continuity and pensionary benefits. The Court also noted that the Government Resolution did not prohibit counting of past service for continuity. The petition was dismissed, and the Tribunal's order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Counting of Past Service - Contractual Service Prior to Regularisation - Continuity and Pensionary Benefits - The issue was whether employees appointed on contract basis in Government Tribal Industrial Training Institutes under a Scheme were entitled to have their contractual service counted for continuity and pensionary benefits after regularisation. The Court held that the Tribunal correctly directed counting of contractual service for continuity and other consequential benefits except monetary benefits, as the employees continued in service without break and regularisation did not erase past service. (Paras 1-22) B) Service Law - Regularisation - Prospective Effect - Past Service - The State argued that regularisation was prospective from April 1, 2014, and past contractual service could not be counted. The Court rejected this, holding that regularisation does not wipe out past service and that the employees' continuity of service must be recognised for pensionary and other benefits. (Paras 10-22) C) Service Law - Government Resolution - Interpretation - Counting of Past Service - The Court interpreted the Government Resolution dated July 8, 2014, and held that it did not prohibit counting of past contractual service for continuity. The Court relied on precedents to hold that past service, even if contractual, must be counted for continuity and pensionary benefits. (Paras 15-22)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the services rendered by employees on contract basis prior to their regularisation should be counted for continuity in service and other consequential service benefits, excluding monetary benefits.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated December 14, 2018, directing that the services rendered by the respondents before the dates of their regularisation w.e.f. April 1, 2014 be counted for continuity in service and other consequential service benefits, except monetary benefits.
Law Points
- Contractual service prior to regularisation counts for continuity and pensionary benefits
- but not for monetary benefits
- Regularisation does not erase past service
- Government Resolution cannot override judicial precedents on counting past service
