Case Note & Summary
The case involved a batch of writ petitions filed by the State of Maharashtra under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT). The MAT had directed the State Government to consider the cases of Group 'C' employees for grant of benefits under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme (TBPS) and/or the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) by taking into account their services from the date of their initial appointments. The respondent employees, who were Group C employees of the State Government, had approached the MAT seeking benefits under TBPS/ACPS, which provided for time-bound promotions or assured career progression on completion of 12 or 24 years of service. The dispute arose because the State considered only service from the regularization date of 1 December 1994, ignoring prior service rendered by the employees on temporary or contractual basis before regularization. The MAT, following the principle laid down in earlier decisions including that of the High Court, held that the entire continuous service from initial appointment should be counted. Aggrieved, the State filed these writ petitions contending that the MAT misinterpreted the Government Resolutions and the concept of 'regular service'. The central issue was whether the prescribed 12 or 24 years of service for availing these benefits should be reckoned from the employees' initial appointment dates or from 1 December 1994, the date when their services were regularised under a Government Resolution dated 1 December 1994. The petitioner State argued that the term 'regular service' as used in subsequent GRs dated 8 June 1995 and 20 July 2001 meant service rendered only after regularization, and that any prior service, even if continuous, did not qualify. The State relied on judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Surendra Mohnot, State of Rajasthan vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi, State of Haryana vs. Haryana Veterinary & Ahts Association, and Punjab State Electricity Board vs. Jagjiwan Ram to support the distinction between regular service and continuous service. The MAT had relied on its own previous decisions and a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Director of Technical Education vs. Kum. Nanda C. Chavan to rule in favour of the employees. The High Court heard arguments and reserved judgment on 7 April 2016, and thereafter pronounced the judgment on 28 April 2016. The excerpt of the judgment provided does not include the court's analysis or final decision on the petitions.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the period of service for benefits under TBPS/ACPS is to be reckoned from the date of initial appointment or from 1 December 1994, the date of regularization.
Law Points
- Interpretation of 'regular service' under GR dated 8 June 1995 and 20 July 2001
- reckoning of service for TBPS/ACPS from date of initial appointment or from 1 December 1994 regularization
- distinction between regular service and continuous service
