- (1.) Heard on the question of admission. The appellants/petitioners have questioned the legality of the order dated 3.3.2012 passed by the Single Bench in CWP No.1756/2012.
(2.) The appellants claimed the benefit of selection grade upon completion of 18 and 27 years of service and the length of service be reckoned from the date of initial appointment on ad hoc officiation basis along with consequential benefits. Prayer has also been made to count the service for granting 9 years benefit also. It is averred in the writ application that they were appointed as Teacher Grade-III. Their appointment was for a period of six months. They were given notice for termination of service. They filed writ application. The writ application was allowed. It appears that the appellants continued in service as interim order was also passed in their favour. Pursuant to the order of regularisation which was passed, the services of the appellants were regularised with effect from the various dates given in Chart Annex.3 to the writ application. The benefit was claimed of computing service rendered before regularisation for grant of time bound advancement in selection scale. The appellants claimed the aforesaid relief by filing of the writ application. The same has been dismissed relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi, 2009 12 SCC 49. Aggrieved thereby, the intra court appeal has been preferred.
(3.) Dr.PS Bhati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi is distinguishable and cannot be applied to the facts of the instant case as benefit of 9 years and 18 years was given to certain employees by reckoning the period of ad hoc officiation also. Thus, it was incumbent upon the State Government to give benefit of 27 years also counting the service from the initial date of ad hoc officiation. When once this Court has interfered in the matter and granted regularisation, the case of the appellants stand on different footing. He has relied upon the circular dated 26.6.2001 (Annex.13 to the writ application). He has further argued that some cases were pending before the Single Bench in which notice was isued, hence, it was not proper for Single Bench to have decided the case of the appellants.;