Case study: Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Through its Registrar v. Dr. Zafar Singh Solanki & Ors

By Anish Sinha 10 Minutes Read

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 8509 OF 2024

Date of judgement: 8^th August, 2024

Bench: Hima Kohli (J), Ahsanuddin Amanullah (J)

Court: Supreme court of India

Facts

• Respondents were initially appointed on an ad-hoc basis in various educational institutions, including the Rajasthan Agricultural University, before their regular appointment as Assistant Professors.
• The Rajasthan Agricultural University issued a notification stating that selected Lecturers and Research Assistants would be designated as Assistant Professors with retrospective effect from January 1, 1973. The university sought approval from the Rajasthan government for this change.
• The Rajasthan government later directed the university to rescind this designation, allowing the CAS benefit only to those Assistant Professors who were directly selected through a regular process by the Statutory Selection Commission.
• The respondents challenged this directive in the Rajasthan High Court, seeking to have their ad-hoc service counted towards their eligibility for the CAS. Single judge of the High Court ruled in favor of the respondents, and this decision was upheld by a division bench.
• The Rajasthan government later moved the Supreme Court in relation to the case, where the appeals against the same impugned order had already been dismissed.

Decision of Rajasthan High Court

The respondents initially sought relief from the Rajasthan High Court, requesting that their period of ad-hoc service be considered when determining their eligibility for the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS).

The single judge of the High Court ruled in their favor, extending the CAS benefits to them. This decision was later upheld by the division bench of the High Court. The bench relied on the precedent set in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Milap Chand Jain[1], where it was held that a lecturer who had worked on an ad-hoc basis prior to regular appointment should be entitled to count the entire period of ad-hoc service for the purpose of CAS benefits.

However, the situation became more complicated when the Milap Chand judgment was subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court, which referenced its earlier decision in State of Rajasthan v. Dr. Suresh Chand Agarwal[2].

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled that service rendered in an ad-hoc appointment as a Lecturer cannot be counted when determining eligibility for the senior pay scale under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). This ruling clarifies that only service after a regular appointment as an Assistant Professor can be considered for CAS benefits.

Resultantly, CAS notified by the Union Government on July 22, 1988, revised the pay scale of teachers in universities and colleges effective from January 1, 1986. According to this scheme, a lecturer was eligible for a senior scale of Rs. 3000-5000 after completing eight years of service following a regular appointment. The Rajasthan government subsequently implemented this scheme within the state. The ruling has significant implications for those who served in ad-hoc positions before securing a regular appointment, as their ad-hoc service will not count toward the eligibility criteria for the senior pay scale under CAS.

Court noted that current legal interpretation and application of certain rules or directives are primarily the responsibility of the appellant, particularly in the context of state government directives. The court also asserts that such interpretation should generally be upheld unless it is blatantly unreasonable or arbitrary.

The Court specified that the High Court, in this instance, was deemed to have overstepped its bounds by including the ad-hoc service of the respondents when calculating the period necessary for applying the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). This indicates that the High Court’s decision to count the ad-hoc service was considered unjustified within the legal framework provided.

In final conclusion court laid down the rights and entitlements of the respondents in relation to their pay, emoluments, and benefits under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), and held that respondents are entitled to receive notional benefits related to pay and emoluments for the purpose of calculating their retirement and service conditions, as well as post-retirement benefits. However, they will not receive any benefits under the CAS itself due to this judgment.

The statement further clarifies that if the respondents are eligible for benefits under the CAS after completing eight years of service from the date of their regular appointment, or if they qualify for benefits under any other scheme or policy, the State Government or the appellant cannot deny them those benefits based solely on this judgment. Essentially, while the judgment restricts benefits under the CAS in the specific context of this case, it does not preclude the respondents from receiving any other benefits they are entitled to under different criteria or schemes.

Key legal issue discussed

1. Can an ad-hoc appointment as a Lecturer be considered for eligibility for the senior pay scale under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS)?

No

The court noted that the Rajasthan government had clarified through a letter dated September 20, 1994, that the period of ad-hoc service rendered by Assistant Professors would not be counted for extending senior pay scale benefits under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS).

Relying on its decision in a related petition, the court emphasized that the CAS is a policy matter, and the respondents cannot claim a vested right to have the policy interpreted in a specific way. The court stated that such interpretative matters should be left to the appellant, subject to the State Government’s directives, unless the interpretation is patently perverse or arbitrary. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in counting the ad-hoc service rendered by the respondents for calculating the period required for CAS eligibility.

2. Are the respondents entitled to notional benefits for calculating retirement and service conditions, and can the State Government or the appellant deny them benefits under (CAS) or any other scheme if they meet the required criteria after this judgment? 

Yes

Court made clear that there should be no recovery from the respondent. However, the court clarified that the respondents would be entitled to the notional benefit of pay and emoluments for calculating their retirement/service conditions and post-retirement benefits, but without granting any CAS benefits. The court further clarified that if the respondents are eligible for CAS benefits after completing eight years of service from their regular appointment date, or for benefits under any other scheme or policy, the State Government or appellant should not deny them such advantages based solely on this judgment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision underlines the principle that ad-hoc service as a Lecturer cannot be counted towards eligibility for the senior pay scale under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). The court reaffirmed that CAS is a policy matter, and its interpretation should be left to the relevant authorities, barring any arbitrary or perverse application. While the respondents cannot claim CAS benefits for their ad-hoc service, the court ensured that they would receive notional benefits for retirement purposes, and any subsequent entitlements based on regular service should not be denied. This judgment reinforces the importance of clear policy guidelines and the limits of judicial intervention in administrative policy interpretation.

[1] (2013) 14 SCC 562.

[2] Civil Appeal No.469/2007 dated 10.03.2011.

Anish Sinha