1 / 9 2025:CGHC:20760 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4596 of 2022 1 - Dr. C.L. Patel S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Patel Aged About 67 Years Retired Professor, Department Of Law, Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University Raipur , R/o House No. 40, Street - 1, Sector - 1, Professor Colony, P.S. Purani Basti Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner - Collegiate Education Directorate Of Higher Education Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur , District -Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University Through The Registrar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. J. N. Nande, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.05.12 11:17:25 +0530 2 / 9 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 06/05/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner, who is a retired Professor from the Department of Law, Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, is seeking quashment of order dated 05/01/2022 passed by the Directorate of Higher Education and also seeking a direction towards the respondent authority to compute the service of the petitioner from 07/09/1982 to 30/06/1991 for pensionary benefits and other consequential benefits. 2. (a) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed by the State of MP as an Assistant Professor in Law on ad-hoc basis and posted at Government PG College Dhar, Madhya Pradesh on 07/09/1982. The services of the petitioner was regularized on 30/06/1991 but till the date of regularization, the petitioner has rendered his services on ad-hoc basis without any break of total length of more than 9 years. The petitioner was transferred from Government law College Dhar to Government Chhattisgarh College, Raipur on 31/10/1992. In the year 2000, the petitioner filed an original application before the MP State administrative Tribunal, Raipur claiming the benefit of annual increment for the ad-hoc service rendered by him from September, 1982 till date of regularization. The State Administrative Tribunal Raipur bench allowed the original application of the petitioner vide order dated 03/05/2000 and directed to pay annual increment with all arrears. 3 / 9 (b) According to the learned counsel, in the meanwhile, the respondent No.3/University invited application for the post of Professor from eligible candidates. The petitioner participated in the said recruitment process and was selected for the post of Professor in the Department of Law the respondent University vide order dated 28/07/2004. Thereafter, the petitioner joined as Professor in the respondent University. After attaining the age of superannuation the petitioner retired on 30/06/2019 from the post of Professor. After retirement, the petitioner claimed retiral benefits with a request to calculate the initial ad-hoc period of service rendered by him for the purpose of computation of retiral benefits. (c) Learned counsel would submit that when the respondent did not consider the claim of the petitioner, he preferred the writ petition bearing WPS No.5506/2020 which has been decided vide order dated 22/01/2021 with a direction to the respondent authorities to pay retiral dues. In compliance with the said order, the authority while granting the pensionary benefits to the petitioner for the service rendered by him after regularization and refused to consider the period of service rendered by him as ad- hoc employee. He further submits that vide impugned order dated 05/01/2022 (Annexure P/12) the Additional Director (Finance), Directorate of Higher Education/ respondent No.2 refused to count the ad-hoc service period of the petitioner on the ground that there was a break in service of the petitioner during ad-hoc period therefore, the said period cannot be counted from total 4 / 9 length of service. The respondents while refusing to count the ad- hoc period for computation of pensionary benefits referred the provisions of Rule 15(A) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short, “the Rules of 1976”) observed that during the ad hoc period, there is a break in service and hence the ad hoc period cannot be taken into consideration while computing the pensionary benefits. (d) In support of his contention, learned counsel referred the Clause 7(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointment Rules, 1986 (for short, “the Rules of 1986”) which reads as under :- 7. Preparation of Selection List.- (1) xxx (2) xxx (3) The names of the persons, in the selection list, shall be arranged in order of their seniority in the ad- hoc appointment. The seniority shall be assessed from the date of their ad-hoc appointment from which they are in continuous service. If two or more persons have been appointed together, their Seniority shall be assessed in that order in which their names appear in the appointment order. Explanation - For the purpose of this sub-rule, 3 das gap between the first and subsequent appointment on the post of Assistant Professors in the Higher Education Department shall be treated at continuous service; 5 / 9 (e) He would submit that the gap between the first and subsequent appointment on the post of Assistant Professor in Higher Education Department shall be treated as continuous service and the petitioner’s claim to count the period of Ad-hoc services cannot be refused by the respondents. The decision of the respondents is contrary to the provisions prescribed under the Rules of 1986. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the University by supporting the decision of the State Government submits that the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected on the basis of the clear provision of Rule 15(A) of the Pension Rules of 1976 and there is no illegality at all in the decision of the State Government. The same is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Perusal of the order dated 02/02/2022 passed by this Court in CONT No.505/2021 would show that while deciding the said contempt proceeding, it was observed that the dispute for non counting of his service from 1982 to 1991 regarding non computation of pensionary benefits is concerned, liberty is granted to the petitioner to claim the same by way of fresh proceeding. In view of the same when the petitioner claimed before the authorities to consider the Ad-hoc period i.e. 1982 to 1991 as service period for computation of pensionary benefits, the 6 / 9 respondent rejected the claim vide order dated 05/01/2022 (Annexure P/12) by referring the Rules 15(A) of the Rules of 1976 which reads as under :- 1) Below rule 15, the following shall be inserted as Rule 15(A) namely:-"15 A-Counting of ad-hoc service-ad-hoc service shall qualify, if:- (a) the ad-hoc appointment was against a regular post and appointment is regularized without interruption in service; or 6. According to the respondent authorities there is a break in service during the period initial appointment and regularization and because of break in service during the said period, the respondents refused to consider the said period for computing the pensionary benefits. 7. As far as the period of gap between the first and subsequent appointment on the post of Assistant Professor in Higher Education Department is concerned, the provision of Rules 7(3) prescribed under the Madhya Pradesh Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointment Rules, 1986 reads as under:- 7. Preparation of Selection List.- (1) xxx (2) xxx (3) The names of the persons, in the selection list, shall be arranged in order of their seniority in the ad- hoc appointment. The seniority shall be assessed from the date of their ad-hoc appointment from which they 7 / 9 are in continuous service. If two or more persons have been appointed together, their Seniority shall be assessed in that order in which their names appear in the appointment order. Explanation - For the purpose of this sub-rule, 3 days gap between the first and subsequent appointment on the post of Assistant Professors in the Higher Education Department shall be treated at continuous service; 8. Once the Rule of 1986 provides that three days’ gap between first and subsequent appointment on the post of Assistant Professor in the Higher Education Department shall be treated as continuous service, the decision taken by the respondent by which they have declined to consider the Ad-hoc service period for computation of total length of service for the purpose of pensionary benefits appears to be illegal and arbitrary to the Rules of 1986. 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Netram Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others reported in (2018) 5 SCC 430 observed as under:-- 16. In our considered opinion, once the State regularised the services of the appellant while he was in State services, the appellant became entitled to count his total period of service for claiming the gratuity amount subject to his proving continuous service of 5 years as specified under Section 2-A of the Act which, in this case, the appellant has duly proved. 17. In the circumstances appearing in the case, it would be travesty of justice, if the appellant is denied 8 / 9 his legitimate claim of gratuity despite rendering "continuous service" for a period of 25 years which even, according to the State, were regularised. The question as to from which date such services were regularised was of no significance for calculating the total length of service for claiming gratuity amount once the services were regularised by the State. 18. It was indeed the State who took 22 years to regularise the service of the appellant and went on taking work from the appellant on payment of a meagre salary of Rs 2776 per month for 22 long years uninterruptedly and only in the last three years, the State started paying a salary of Rs 11,107 per month to the appellant. Having regularised the services of the appellant, the State had no justifiable reason to deny the benefit of gratuity to the appellant which was his statutory right under the Act. It being a welfare legislation meant for the benefit of the employees, who serve their employer for a long time, it is the duty of the State to voluntarily pay the gratuity amount to the appellant rather than to force the employee to approach the Court to get his genuine claim. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, we cannot agree with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court which is legally unsustainable. It is really unfortunate that the genuine claim of the appellant was being denied by the State at every stage of the proceedings up to this Court and dragged him g in fruitless litigation for all these years. 20. Indeed, this reminds us of the apt observations made by M.C. Chagla, C.J. (as he then was) in Firm 9 / 9 Kaluram Sitaram v. Union of India. The learned Chief Justice in his distinctive style of writing while deciding the case between an individual citizen and the State made the following pertinent observations: (SCC OnLine Bom para 19) "19. Now, we have often had occasion to say that when the State deals a with a citizen it should not ordinarily reply on technicalities, and if the State is satisfied that the case of the citizen is a just one, even though legal defences may be open to it, it must act, as has been said by eminent Judges, as an honest person." 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 05/01/2022 (Annexure P/12) passed by the Additional Director (Finance), Directorate of Higher Education/ respondent No.2 is hereby quashed. Further it is directed that the respondents shall consider the period of Ad-hoc service rendered by the petitioner from 1982 to 1991 while calculating total length of service for the purpose of providing retiral dues/ pensionary benefits. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and take necessary steps to release the pensionary benefits to the petitioner within a period of 50 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar