Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a lecturer at Babasaheb Naik College of Engineering, Pusad, sought to count his service from 02.07.1988 for the purpose of senior scale and selection grade pay fixation under Amravati University Statute No. 1 of 1989. He had been initially appointed on that date by a Staff Selection Committee comprising a Vice Chancellor’s nominee, an expert, and a government nominee. Despite this, the college issued a fresh appointment order on 29.08.1992 placing him on probation for two years and forwarded only that appointment to the university for approval, which was granted on 18.03.1996 from the academic year 1992-93. The petitioner’s earlier termination was challenged before the College Tribunal in Appeal No. A10 of 1992, which decided on 11.06.1992 that the 02.07.1988 appointment was regular. Nevertheless, the Grievance Committee of Amravati University, in its order dated 19.08.2002, considered his service only from 29.08.1992, rejecting his claim for placement in the scale of Rs.3700-5700 with effect from 02.07.2004. The University confirmed that order on 17.09.2002. The petitioner filed the writ petition challenging these orders. The main legal issue was whether his regular appointment date should be taken as 02.07.1988, which would entitle him to senior scale after 8 years and selection grade after 16 years, or 29.08.1992. The college argued that the earlier appointment was purely temporary and not made through a proper Selection Committee, while the university contended that it had never received any proposal for that earlier appointment. The Court examined the provisions of Statute No. 1 of 1989 and Statute 8 of 1979. It noted that the appointment on 02.07.1988 was by a duly constituted Selection Committee, the same committee that would be required for a regular appointment. It also highlighted that the petitioner was already working in the college and his pay was protected. Crucially, the College Tribunal’s binding decision in 1992 had already declared that appointment regular. The Court held that the respondents could not re-agitate that issue. It further ruled that the management’s failure to forward the proposal to the university for approval did not affect the legality of the initial appointment; the second appointment in 1992 was an artificial creation. Since the respondents had already granted the petitioner senior scale of Rs.3000-5000 from 02.07.1996 by counting his service from 02.07.1988, they could not adopt a different date for the selection grade. The Court quashed the orders of the Grievance Committee and the University, and directed placement of the petitioner in the scale of Rs.3700-5700 with effect from 02.07.2004, counting his continuous service from 02.07.1988, with arrears to be calculated and paid within three months, failing which interest at 15% per annum would accrue. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Senior Scale and Selection Grade - Counting of continuous service - Amravati University Statute No. 1 of 1989, Clauses 12 and 13 - The dispute centered on whether the petitioner’s service as a lecturer should be computed from 02.07.1988 or 29.08.1992 for placement in the senior scale of Rs.3000-5000 and subsequently in the selection grade of Rs.3700-5700. The Court held that the initial appointment through a duly constituted Selection Committee was regular and must be the starting point for all service computations under the Statute; the same date applies uniformly for both 8-year and 16-year periods. (Paras 4-5, 8) B) Service Law - Approval by University - Non-forwarding of proposal does not invalidate regular appointment - Amravati University Statute No. 8 of 1979, Appendix I - The management’s failure to send a proposal for university approval of the initial appointment and its subsequent issuance of a second appointment order on probation were held to be artificial and not constituting a fresh start of service. The Court observed that such default cannot arrest deemed confirmation if the underlying appointment was otherwise lawful. (Paras 5, 7, 9) C) Service Law - Res Judicata/Issue Estoppel - Binding effect of earlier tribunal decision - The College Tribunal in Appeal No. A10 of 1992 had already determined on 11.06.1992 that the petitioner’s appointment on 02.07.1988 was regular. The Court held that this decision is binding upon all respondents and attained finality, thereby precluding them from re-litigating the nature of the appointment. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the regular appointment of the petitioner in terms of clause 12(a) of Statute No. 1 of 1989 is required to be considered from 02.07.1988 or 29.08.1992?
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 19.08.2002 passed by the Grievance Committee and confirmed by the University on 17.09.2002 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to placement in the scale of Rs.3700-5700 with effect from 02.07.2004 by counting his continuous service from 02.07.1988. He shall be entitled to arrears arising out of the difference in pay scale and consequential benefits. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall work out the arrears within three months and pay the same within one month thereafter, failing which interest at 15% per annum shall accrue. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 shall grant approval to such placement if required.
Law Points
- regular appointment by Selection Committee
- service for senior scale counts from date of regular appointment
- failure to forward proposal does not arrest deemed confirmation
- prior tribunal decision binding
- same date applies for 8-year and 16-year benefits
