Back
Leela Devi's Past Dai Service Cannot Be Clubbed with ANM Role:
Dai to ANM: A Career Progression Derailed by
In a significant ruling on service benefits, the has held that past service rendered on a lower post cannot be automatically counted towards a higher post for increments or benefits unless the applicable Recruitment and Promotion Rules expressly permit such clubbing. The judgment, delivered by Justice Ranjan Sharma on , dismisses a petition filed by Leela Devi, a former Dai (midwife) who later became an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM).
The Journey from Dai to ANM
Leela Devi was appointed as a regular Dai in the on . While serving in this capacity, she obtained permission and study leave to undergo ANM training between and . After completing the course, she rejoined her old post. In 2000, the department initiated a fresh direct recruitment process for ANM positions. Leela Devi applied, was selected, and joined as an ANM on —accepted as a "fresh candidate" without protest.
She later sought an increment under , arguing that her ANM appointment should be treated as a promotion from her Dai role, and requested that her 14 years of service as Dai be counted toward ACP benefits for the ANM cadre. The department rejected both claims, leading her to the court after an 18-year delay.
The Court's Reasoning: No Automatic Promotion Without Rules
Justice Sharma meticulously dissected the petitioner's claims, emphasizing that her ANM appointment was a
, not a promotion. The judgment noted that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for ANM posts contained no provision automatically promoting Dais who had completed ANM training. Further, the "
" granted for her training expressly stated that she would have
"no claim whatsoever for appointment on higher post or for grant of higher pay scale."
The court also rejected the argument for clubbing past service, observing:
"The service rendered on post of Dai cannot be counted towards the service rendered on post of an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife unless the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for post of an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife expressly provided for counting post-service for service benefits and the petitioner has failed to make out a case under the Statutory Rules."
: Sleeping Over Rights for 18 Years
A crucial factor in the dismissal was the extraordinary delay. The court noted that Leela Devi accepted the fresh appointment in 2000 without any demur and approached the tribunal only in —18 years later. Citing precedents from the —including and —the court held that such inaction bars .
ACP Benefits Already Granted
The judgment further revealed that the department had already granted three ACP benefits to Leela Devi: one for her Dai service in , and two for her ANM service under the and 2012 schemes. The court found no basis for additional benefits the scheme's provisions.
Final Order: Petition Dismissed
The High Court dismissed CWPOA No.1224/2020 in its entirety, upholding the department's rejection orders. The court concluded that neither the increment under FR-22(1)(a)(i) nor the for ACP benefits was permissible. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.
This ruling reinforces the principle that public employment benefits flow from statutory rules, not subjective expectations—and that delay in challenging appointments can prove fatal to claims for retrospective relief.
