Ad-hoc service followed by regular service on the same post must be counted for the purpose of increments and pensionary benefits, although the regularization itself is prospective from the date of the order.

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge

(Oral)

The petitioner by way of present petition, has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

“(1) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and the impugned regularization Oder dated 02.01.2019 (Annexure P-14) be modified and the respondent may kindly be directed to regularize the service of the petitioner w.e.f. in the year 2000 in terms of Policy adopted by the respondent university with all consequential benefits or in altenative respondent may kindly be directed to treat the petitioner as appointee prior to 15-05-2003 which is pension cut-off date and the count the Adhoc service rendered for the purpose of pension with all consequential Benefits.

(2) That the respondent university may kindly be directed to release the pension in favour of petitioner with interest.”

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. The facts, which emerge from the pleadings, are that the petitioner was initially engaged as Daily Paid Labourer in the Estate Organization of the respondent-University w.e.f. 21.04.1991 to 20.08.1992. Thereafter, he has performed his duties as Daily Paid Chowkidar w.e.f. 21.08.1992 to 20.12.1994 and lastl y before issuance of ofÏce order dated 07.05.2003 (Annrexure P-6), he has worked as Work Supervisor continuously w.e.f. 01.08.2001 to 06.05.2003. As per ofÏce order dated 07.05.2003 (Annexure P-6), the petitioner was appointed as Audio System Operator in the pay scale of Rs.3120-100-3220-110-3660-120-4260-140-4400-150-5000-160-5160 plus allowances as admissible from time to time in the respondent-University on ad-hoc basis for a period of six months in the first instance or till regular arrangement is made, whichever is earlier from the date he reports his duty to the Estate OfÏcer. It is not in dispute that the petitioner in sequel to the said order had joined his duty as Audio System Operator. Since the petitioner was not fulfilling the requisite qualification as per R & P Rules for the post of Auto System Operator notified by the respondent-University vide Notification dated 25.09.2002, his services were not regularized. The petitioner was offered the post of Field Assistant, but he did not give his consent and preferred a representation dated 18.07.2013 followed by another representation dated 13.03.2014 for regularization of his services to the post of Audiro System Operator. When the respondent-University did not decide the representation, he approached this Court by filing CWP No.7759 of 2014 wherein this Court had given direction to decide the representation made by the petitioner as per the Rules occupying the field. Since the petitioner was not fulfilling the requisite qualification, his representation came to be rejected on 02.12.2014 (Annexure P-12).

3. The petitioner again filed a writ petition before the Court, which was transferred to the learned Tribunal and registered as T.A. No.5981 of 2015 and was disposed of on 26.07.2018 (Annexure P-13), directing the respondent-University to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Audio System Operator after giving him relaxation. In sequel to the said order passed by the Tribunal, the respondent-University passed an order on 02.01.2019 (Annexure P-14) and adhoc services of the petitioner were regularized to the post of Audio System Operator in the pay band of Rs.5910-20200+GP of Rs.1900 plus allowances thereon as sanctioned by the rresponde