CW/7435/2009 of SMT. SHANTA NAGAR Vs MAHARANA PRATAP UNIVERSITY and ORS on 21 December 2012

SB Civil Writ Petition No.7435/2009

Smt. Shanta Nagarv.

Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology,Udaipur and others Date of Order :: 21[st] December, 2012

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR

Mr. Mukesh Vyas, for the petitioner.

Mr. G.R.Punia Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Rajesh Punia, for the respondents.

....

The petitioner was engaged as Survivor in aproject viz. “Matra-Shishu Kalyan Pariyojna” under an orderdated 13.9.1985 passed by the Registrar, SukhadiaUniversity, Udaipur. The project aforesaid came to becompleted in the month of October, 1986, therefore, thepetitioner was accommodated as Lady Extension Worker inExtension Wing of the Department of Extension Education,Rajasthan College of Agriculture, Udaipur under an orderdated 25.10.1986 passed by the Registrar, SukhadiaUniversity, Udaipur.

Suffice to mention that on creation of RajasthanAgriculture University, Bikaner, the Rajasthan College ofAgriculture, Udaipur was kept under the control of theuniversity aforesaid. The Professor and Head, Extension,Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner Camp Udaipurunder a letter dated 28.12.1987 made a recommendation forregular appointment of the petitioner in the prescribed payscale looking to the experience and expertise availablewith her. Acting upon an application submitted by the petitioner dated 24.12.1987, the Dean, Rajasthan College ofAgriculture, Udaipur vide order dated 10.5.1988 appointedthe petitioner on adhoc basis as Lady Extension Officer inthe pay scale prescribed for the post aforesaid. Theappointment was given after interviewing the petitioner.The adhoc appointment so given was extended time to time bythe competent officers of the Rajasthan AgricultureUniversity, Bikaner. The Board of Management of theRajasthan Agriculture University on 22.1.1998 resolved thatthe persons who have passed the prescribed jobtest/interview and are found qualified for the post onwhich adhoc appointment was given to them, their servicesshall be regularised from the date of joining the postthrough a screening committee to be appointed by the ViceChancellor. The petitioner as such became eligible to beconsidered for regularisation of her service, however, nosuch order of regularisation was passed in view of the factthat the services of the petitioner were placed at thedisposal of the Agriculture University, Udaipur on itscreation. The Agriculture University, Udaipur wassubsequently named as Maharana Pratap University ofAgriculture and Technology, Udaipur. The respondentuniversity then screened the petitioner in pursuant to theresolution dated 22.1.1998 and regularised her in serviceas Lady Extension Worker w.e.f. 18.8.2000.

The grievance of the petitioner is that therespondent university has made regularisation of herservice w.e.f. 18.8.2000, though in light of the resolutiondated 22.1.1998 she is entitled for the same w.e.f.10.5.1988.

In reply to the writ petition filed on behalf ofthe respondents the facts of the case are not muchdisputed. As per the respondents, the petitioner came to beappointed with Maharana Pratap University of Agricultureand Technology only in the year 2000, therefore, no reliefas claimed for can be given. It is asserted that theliability for regularisation of service prior to the year2000 was with Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner andnot with the respondent university.

Conclusion

The petitioner is admittedly in continuousemployment since 1985. An appointment on adhoc capacity wasgiven to her under an order dated 10.5.1988 as a consequentto a job test and interview. In light of the resolutiondated 22.1.1998 she is admittedly entitled forregularisation of her service from the date of initialappointment. The same has been denied only on the countthat in the year 1998 she was working with RajasthanAgriculture University. True it is, the petitioner in theyear 1998 was working with Rajasthan AgricultureUniversity, Bikaner but that cannot be a reason to denyregularisation of service. As already stated, thepetitioner at the first instance was employed with SukhadiaUniversity then she was kept at the disposal of RajasthanAgriculture University, Bikaner and then with respondentMaharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology.Placement of the petitioner's service with theseuniversities is not as per her wishes, but due tobifurcation, division and creation of the universities timeto time. It is also pertinent to mention that the respondent university while regularising the petitioner inservice under the order dated 14/18.8.2000 acted upon theresolution dated 22.1.1998 undertaken by the Board ofManagement of the Rajasthan Agriculture University,Bikaner. These facts clearly establishes entitlement of thepetitioner for regularisation in service from the date ofher initial appointment as per the resolution referredabove.

Thewritpetition,therefore,deservesacceptance. Accordingly, the same is allowed. Therespondents are directed to regularise services of thepetitioner as Lady Extension Worker from the date of herinitial appointment i.e. 10.5.1988. She shall be entitledfor all consequential benefits including grant of annualgrade increments, admissible allowances, fixation inrevised pay scales, seniority etc. The fixation of the payscales by awarding annual grade increments is required tobe made on notional basis upto the month of August, 2000and subsequent thereto the petitioner shall be entitled forall actual benefits. If any arrear accrues to thepetitioner as a consequent to fixation of the pay scales inthe terms above, then that is required to be paid to herwithin a period of three months from today.

( GOVIND MATHUR ),J.