An employee appointed to a sanctioned post who serves for a long duration in a regular pay scale cannot be denied regularization and pensionary benefits if the failure to fulfill appointment conditions was beyond their control and caused by the State's inaction.

ORDER :

ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT, J.

This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):

“(i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed;

(ii) That, the impugned order dated 14.12.2016 Annexure P/1 passed by the respondent no.2 may kindly be directed to be set aside. It may kindly be further clarified that there has been no break in service for a day even right from the joining of the petitioner in the year 1987 till her retirement up to 2014, in that view of the matter the respondents have no option but to regularize the services of the petitioner especially in the facts and circumstances of the case when they permitted the petitioner to retire and aforesaid two conditions are not with her control.

(iii) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner. Costs be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed on 27.10.1987 on the post of Registrar in Post Graduate P.G. College, Shivpuri. She joined on 30.10.1987 and worked regularly till 1990. Thereafter, she was transferred to Government P.G. College, Guna. It is further submitted that petitioner was initially appointed on compassionate ground on account of death of her husband in harness. It is further submitted that there were two conditions mentioned in the appointment order viz.: -

(i) petitioner was required to pass Accounts Training Examination within two years; and

(ii) petitioner was required to qualify the Public Service Commission Examination as and when it was held, failing which her services could be terminated without notice.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that as per terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment order, it is clear that accounts training was to be acquired by petitioner, only when she was allowed by the department to participate in the Accounts Training. It is further submitted that Accounts Training cannot be obtained outside the department on private basis but it has to be obtained through department as the same is conducted by the Department only. So far as condition No.2 is concerned, it is submitted that P.S.C. has never advertised for the post of Registrar. It is further submitted that petitioner applied before the Director Treasury and Accountants M.P. Bhopal for accounts training in terms of order of appointment dated 27.10.1987 but that application dated 23.2.1988 was not given any due weightage and on the contrary, Director Treasury and Accounts stated that for Class-II Gazetted Post no accounts training is provided. It was further stated in the order that only for Class-III post the Accounts Training is provided by the Government and Accounts Department (Annexure P/3). It is further submitted that both the conditions mentioned in the appointment order cannot be fulfilled by petitioner herself as petitioner was depended upon the department/PSC. As by Annexure P/3 the respondent has already mentioned that there is no need to pass the Accounts Training and so far as the other condition is concerned, right from 1987 till that the post of Registrar was not published by the PSC, therefore, non- qualifying of petitioner till her retirement cannot said to be due fault on the part of petitioner. Petitioner stood retired on 30.8.2014 and as per the Recruitment Rules, i.e. M.P. Higher Education Collegiate Rules, 1987, petitioner's services were required to be regularized in order to extend the benefit of medical leave, half -pay leave, GIS, GPF and pension etc. by calculating the services rendered by her with effect from the date of her initial appointment i.e. with effect from 27.10.1987. It is further submitted that even otherwise since both the conditions were not under the control of the petitioner, the non-regularization of the services of petitioner is absolutely illegal. It is further submi