Civil Judge A B Vashi ­ vs D G Vala &­

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :­

[A] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the impugned decisions/actions of the respondents in considering the date of seniority of the petitioner to the post of Senior Clerk w.e.f. 08.08.1980 instead of 02.02.1980 and fixing the pay scale of Rs.5,300/­ considering the basic pay of Rs.1,650/­ as on 01.01.1996 and not releasing the due increments w.e.f. 1992 and also directing the petitioner to repay the excess amount paid to him declaring them to be illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and unreasonable and therefore violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

[B] Pending hearing, admissions and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents to release due increments w.e.f. 02.02.1980 and also direct the respondents to fix the pay scale accordingly and further direct them not to recover any amount from the salary of the petitioner.

[C] ........

[D] ”

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Senior Clerk in the office of the respondent University on temporary basis against the post which was created on account of the leave vacant by co­employee on 02.02.1980. It appears from the record that he was promoted to the said post to officiate on regular basis with effect from 08.08.1980. By preferring this petition, the petitioner has prayed to consider his date of seniority with effect from 02.02.1980 instead of 08.08.1980 and to grant all the consequential benefits.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post in question on 02.02.1980 and therefore, the respondent University ought to have considered his seniority from the said date. It was submitted that the petitioner by officiating on the said post was also granted benefits of the relevant Government Resolutions issued by the Government from time to time. However, by not considering his seniority with effect from 02.02.1980, the respondent University has acted in a manner which would cause serious financial damage to the petitioner. It is, therefore, prayed that appropriate directions may be issued in the matter.

4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that the petitioner was appointed on temporary and ad­hoc basis for officiating on the post which had fallen vacant on account of the leave vacant by a co­employee. It is submitted that the petitioner was promoted to the post on regular basis only on 08.08.1980 and not on 02.02.1980 and, therefore, the respondent University was justified in considering his seniority with effect from 08.08.1980 only. It was, therefore, prayed that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent University with effect from 02.02.1980. However, his appointment to the post in question on 02.02.1980 was against the post which had fallen vacant on account of the leave taken by a co­employee. It appears from the record that the petitioner was promoted to the regular post in the respondent University with effect from 08.08.1980 only. During the interregnum period i.e. between 02.02.1980 and 07.08.1980 the petitioner was working on the post which was temporary and purely ad­hoc. He was not working on regular post. Therefore, the petitioner became a regular employee only with effect from 08.08.1980 and accordingly, his seniority was considered from the said date. For the interregnum period at the most the petitioner can be said to be entitled for charge allowance. His seniority cannot be considered to be the date i.e. 02.02.1980 which is the date on which he had joined the service on temporary and ad­hoc basis and not on regular basis. He joined the services on regular post only with effect from 08.08.1980 and therefore, his seniority etc., would be considered from the said date only and not from the date when he had joined the service on temporary / ad­hoc basis.

6. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the present petition and accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief if any, stands vacated.

[K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/