JUDGMENT

Krishn Kumar Lahoti, Acting C.J. - This batch of appeals is arising out of a common order passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions dated 4.4.2012. The common question involving in all the appeals is whether the Assistant Professors appointed through emergency appointment in term of Rule 13(5) of the M.P. Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1967 are entitled to claim benefit of services rendered by them prior to their regularization for grant of senior/selection grade pay-scale.

2. The history of the case deserves to be referred before considering the contentions of the parties;

(i) That, one Dr.Smt.Seema Raizada alongwith some other Assistant Professors, who were appointed in accordance with the provisions of M.P. Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1967 as an emergency appointee, claimed benefit of grant of senior payscale and selection grade from the appellants.

(ii) When such benefit was not extended to them, they had filed an original application before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur. The Tribunal had allowed the application and directed for considering their case for grant of senior pay-scale and selection grade.

(iii) Against the order passed by the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, the State of M.P. had preferred a writ petition before the High Court which was registered as Writ Petition No.4863/2001. The Division Bench on 10.8.2005 considering the case held that her appointment on the post of Assistant Professor was made by an order dated 17.12.1986 under Rule 13(5) of the M.P. Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1967. The appointment was made after issuance of the advertisement and following the selection process in accordance with the provisions of rules. In the circumstances, the Tribunal had rightly directed to take into consideration her initial date of appointment for the purpose of grant of selection grade' pay-scale. The Division Bench had further held that Dr.Smt.Seema Raizada was appointed after due process of selection. Thereafter she was selected by the Public Service Commission. In view of this, her appointment in the year 1986 can not be said to be fortuitous or adhoc. She was appointed after due process of selection in accordance with the rules, she was entitled for getting the said period counted for the purpose of grant of senior grade pay-scale.

(iv) Against the order passed by the Division Bench, an SLP was preferred before the Apex Court. It was dismissed on the ground of delay but the legal question was left open to be considered at a subsequent stage.

(v) After following the law laid down in the case of Dr.Smt.Seema Raizada, various other cases were filed before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal. After closure of the Tribunal, those cases were transmitted to the High Court of M.P. and other petitions which were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India were decided by a common order in Writ Petition No.807/2007(s) Dr.Sandhya Prasad Vs. State of MP dated 13.7.2007. Against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Dr.Sandhya Prasad and other cases, writ appeals were filed by the State Government. The Division-Bench reconsidered the matter and by a common order passed on 11.2.2010 decided the writ appeals and dismissed them following the law laid down in the case of Dr.Smt. Seema Raizada. The Division Bench had directed to extend the benefit as was extended in the case of Dr.Smt.Seema Raizada.

(vi) Thereafter, various writ petitions were filed before the Single Bench of this Court. Those matters were challenged before the Division Bench in different appeals. Ultimately all the matters travelled to the Apex Court on the appeals filed by the State of M.P. The Apex Court by a common order in Civil Appeal No.10554/2011 State of M.P. & others Vs. Satyavrata Taran, reported