The court established that recovery cannot be made after a long time, ad-hoc services can be treated as continuous, and recovery of benefits must be quashed if payscales were verified and approved.

JUDGMENT :

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Utkarsh Sharma learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent State.

2. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

3. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed to direct the respondents to consider the ad-hoc tenure of service of the petitioners as continuous for all purposes by clubbing that period with the period post the selection of the petitioners by the GPSC for the purposes of pay, leave, pension and other consequential service benefits and grant of pay protection.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that they are working as Lecturers, Class-2 in the Government Polytechnic Colleges. Initially, they were appointed on ad-hoc basis in the year 2008-2009. After some time, they were regularly selected in the years 2015-16 after having successfully undergone the selection process through the GPSC. The prayers are therefore in that context.

5. Mr. Ekrama Qureshi learned counsel for the petitioners would rely on an order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.6312 of 2021 and allied matters, wherein, a similar issue was considered by this Court. The Court relying on a decision rendered in Special Civil Application No.6907 of 2021 held as under:

“5. This Court in Special Civil Application No.6907 of 2021, had considered the issue of clubbing ad-hoc services together with regular services post selection after undergoing the GPSC examinations and also with regard to the question of recovery and entitlement of AGP of Rs.7000/-. The order dated 04.04.2022 reads as under:

“1 By an order dated 02.03.2022, the grievances raised by the petitioner were set out. The order dated 02.03.2022 reads as under:

“1 Three fold grievances have been raised by the petitioner in the present petition.

2 Firstly, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.04.2021 by which, the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.2006 to 10.05.2009 are sought to be recovered on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible to the same.

3 Mr.Ketan Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner’s initial appointment on ad-hoc basis was in a pay scale, there was no break in service inasmuch as, on being appointed on an ad-hoc Lecturer she continued to served on ad-hoc basis from 12.04.1993 to 10.05.2009 without a break. She joined the Degree College on 11.05.2009. In the order of recovery, reliance is placed on the communications dated 19.03.2015 (page 80) and 18.07.2020 (page 81).

4 This Court by an order dated 23.04.2021 has granted ad-interim relief against the recovery. Mr.Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that in addition to the petitioner being entitled to the pay-scale on merits, the order of recovery was made 12 years after the fixation was approved by the Examiner of Local Funds as is evident from (pg.32) dated 27.5.2011. The pay scale was verified as is evident from Annexure-’E’ (pg32).

5 The second grievance of the petitioner is that she is entitled to the AGP of Rs.7,000/- with effect from 11.5.2014 and an order has been issued on 3.6.2019, but the same is not being implemented. The third grievance is of treating the period of past service as an ad-hoc Lecturer from 12.4.1993 to 10.5.2009 as continuous for all purposes, since the petitioner has been regularized without any brake in service from 11.5.2009. He would rely on an interim order dated 27.10.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No. 6312 of 2021 and allied matters.

6 Prima facie, as far as recovery is concerned, irrespective of whether the petitioner was entitled to the scale on merits, it is sought to be recovered after 12 years. The mistake cannot be corrected after more than three years as by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd reported i