Dr. Ramsiya Patel vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Rajendra Menon Judge

Interalia contending that the service of the petitioner for the purpose of determining the qualifying service should be calculated w.e.f 8.2.1979 and not w.e.f. 1.8.1981 as done, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Petitioner was working as a Veterinary Surgeon in Divisional Veterinary Hospital, Rewa. According to the petitioner, vide order dated 30.11.1978, he was appointed to the said post and he joined on the said post on 8.2.1979, thereafter, he underwent selection process undertaken by the Public Service Commission and was appointed substantially on the post on 1.8.1981. It is the case of the petitioner that as he was initially appointed w.e.f 8.2.1979 and continued to work on the said post without any break, therefore, for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits, he should be treated to be duly appointed on 8.2.1979. Placing reliance on the definition of qualifying service as contained in the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and the provisions of Rule 12 thereof, Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner''s qualifying service for calculating post retiral benefits should be calculated w.e.f. 8.2.1979 and not w.e.f. 1.8.1981 as done by the respondents. Accordingly, claiming the aforesaid benefit, this writ petition has been filed.

Respondents have filed the reply and it is pointed out by them that the petitioner was initially appointed w.e.f. 8.2.1979 only on a temporary arrangement, his initial appointment with effect from the said date was not in accordance with recruitment rule. The petitioner was appointed after being duly selected by the Public Service Commission w.e.f. 1.8.1981 as per the statutory rules and, therefore, his services for calculating benefits of qualifying service have to be counted w.e.f. 1.8.1981 only and in doing so, it is stated that the respondents have not committed any error. That apart placing reliance on a judgment rendered by this Court on 26.4.2004 in W.P.No.5100/2003, granting regular service benefit and seniority to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.8.1981, respondents contained that the petitioner now in view of the order passed by this Court as is indicated hereinabove, cannot claim any benefit of service rendered prior to 1.8.1981.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the records, it is clear that the petitioner, even though, was appointed as Assistant Veterinary Surgeon vide order dated 30.11.1978 and started working w.e.f. 8.2.1979 but this appointment was only a temporary arrangement. Petitioner was duly appointed as per the recruitment rule after he was selected by the Public Service Commission and this appointment was made on 1.8.1981. When his seniority and other benefits w.e.f. 1.8.1981 was not granted, petitioner filed the writ petition before this Court being W.P.No.5100/2003 and in the said writ petition, the relief claimed by the petitioner was that he be treated as regularly appointed to the post of Assistant Veterinary Surgeon w.e.f. 1.8.1981. The said writ petition was allowed and in the said writ petition, the contention of the petitioner to the effect that he was regularly appointed to the post w.e.f 1.8.1981 was accepted and finally the following directions was issued in the said writ petition :

In the result this petition is allowed. Respondents Nos.1 to 3 are directed to appoint the petitioner on a regular basis as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon from 1.8.1981 when other persons selected by the Public Service Commission were appointed. The respondents are also directed to give the petitioner the same seniority as has been fixed by the Public Service Commission. The petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits from 1.8.1981.

From the aforesaid judgment which is available on record, it is seen that when the petitioner was regularized in service in the year 1987, he claimed benefits of regular appointment w.e.f. 1.8.1981 and this Court directed the respondents to treat the petitioner to be regularly appointed w.e.f. 1.8.1981 and to grant him seniority and all other consequential benefits w.e.f. 1.8.1981. At that point of time, it was not a case of the petitioner that the service be counted prior to 1.8.1981. The petitioner having only claimed benefit of seniority and regular service benefits w.e.f. 1.8.1981 and this Court having granted the benefit only w.e.f 1.8.1981, now the petitioner cannot be granted any benefit prior to 1.8.1981. The petitioner claimed to be regularly appointed after due selection by Public Service Commission on 1.8.1981 and this Court at the instance of the petitioner has directed for granting benefits to the petitioner treating him to be regularly appointed on 1.8.1981 and in doing so, respondents have not committed any error warranting interference now in these proceedings.

The petitioner himself claimed for regular appointment w.e.f. 1.8.1981 when he was regularized in the year 1987 and prior to 1.8.1981, petitioner very well knew that he was not entitled to benefits of regular service prior to 1.8.1981. Accordingly, as the petitioner is granted seniority and all other consequential benefits of regular service only w.e.f. 1.8.1981 by virtue of the order passed by this Court, now contrary to the same, no further benefit or relief can be granted to the petitioner.

Accordingly, finding no case made out for any further indulgence into the matter, this petition is dismissed.