BALIA, J. - (1.) THESE appeals are founded on common ground about computation of services rendered by the appellants' in all these cases under the Rajasthan Agricultural University on temporary basis from the date of entering into service against regular posts, on which posts they continued to serve until they were appointed substantively by holding a screening test after the decision of this Court in Dilip Bhatnagar & 6 Ors. vs. Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner, 1994 (3) WLC 42.
(2.) THE Government of Rajasthan had issued the order dated 25. 1. 92 in respect of the Rajasthan State Employees in class IV and Ministerial and Subordinate services providing the amelioration of service conditions of stagnated employees who have not received any promotion for a span of 9 years in each of 9, 18 and 27 years respectively for the purpose of granting them first, second or third selection scale. In the said order, selection pay scale has been envisioned to be granted without giving actual promotion to the next higher post. By Resolution dated 12/13. 03. 1992 Rajasthan Agricultural University adopted the order No. F 20 (1) FD Gr. II/42 Jaipur dated Jan. 25, 1992 of the Government of Rajasthan providing selection scale after completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of continuous service in the various departments mutatis mutandis. The order was issued on the approval of the Hon'ble Vice Chancellor. It has been a contentious issue between the State and its employees in respect of the order dated 25. 1. 92 whether the period of 9, 18 and 27 years of continuous service is to be computed w. e. f. first entry into the service notwithstanding that it was not an appointment substantively but was permissible appointment on temporary or ad hoc basis under the Rules. The employees were contending that period of 9, 18 and 27 years must commence for the purpose of extending the benefit of 9, 18 and 27 years schemes w. e. f. their initial entry into the service, even temporary. On the other hand, the State Government has taken the stand that the period of service of 9, 18 and 27 years be computed w. e. f. the regular substantive appointment. It is in the backdrop of this controversy, the present appeals have arisen. The employees of the University, who were also alleged to have entitled for the benefits flowing from the Government order dated 25. 1. 92 adopted by it vide Resolution were first subjected to the same controversy. However, when the Rajasthan State Services Appellate Tribunal held in Chhagan Lal vs. Govt. of Raj. , decided on 15. 9. 2000, University issued a notification dated 29. 6. 2001/12. 1. 2001 after resolution in its meeting held on 11. 5. 2001 which read as under:- " The benefit of the selection scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years be allowed to the non-teaching staff as per the decision of the Rajasthan Civil Seva Appeal Abhikran dated 15. 9. 2000 in case of Sh. Chhagan Lal vs. Govt. of Raj. , by counting their service from the date of their entrance in the service (whether it is a regular or adhoc, stop gap arrangement, temporary etc. ). Further resolved that benefit be given only after the funds are specially received from the Government for this purpose. "
(3.) PURSUANT to this direction, the petitioner appellants were given the benefit of selection scale by computing their period of service w. e. f. 11. 7. 1990. However, the Government vide its letter dated 8. 08. 2002 while matter was pending consideration before Full Bench raised objection to inclusion of period of service rendered on ad hoc/temporary basis in 9, 18 and 27 years. In furtherance of this order, the University vide its order dated 26/30. 05. 2003 issued a notification by referring to the Government letter dated 8. 08. 2002 that in pursuance of the aforesaid, the Board of Management resolved that University will follow the guidelines issued by the Government of Rajasthan for not computing the ad hoc appointment period and granting selection scale by counting the period of ad hoc appointment. In future also, the ad hoc period would be deemed to be not counted while granting selection scale. In this notification, the University reiterated the stand taken on 8. 8. 2002 vide letter No. F 3 (2) Agri/gr. 2/02. Apparently, the aforesaid chain of events reveal that what was being sought to be given effect to was the directives issued by the State Government, the order dated 25. 1. 92 concerning computation of 9, 18 and 27 years period for the purpose of extending the benefit of grant of selection scale first, second or third as the case may be or excluding the period of service as temporary or ad hoc notwithstanding that the appointment may be against regular vacancies after due selection and such temporary appointment is permissible under the Rules and when in furtherance of the order dated 26/30. 5. 2003, the recoveries were subjected to be made, the petitions were filed out of which these appeals have arisen. The learned Single Judge by referring the leading judgment in the case of Bheru Ratan and Ors. , decided on 31. 10. 2003 was of the opinion that in view of the Supreme Court decision in State of Haryana vs. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association & Anr. , (2000) 8 SCC 4, regular services cannot be equated as continued service and finding that the initial appointment was a regular appointment, the petitioners' were not entitled to the benefit of computing 9, 18 and 27 years services w. e. f. their initial date of appointment. Consequently, the claim of the petitioner shall not be sustainable. The learned Single Judge also referred to undertaking given by the incumbent at the time of receiving the selection granted under the scheme that in case the Government does not approve the payments, they will return the amount. ;