Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Sameer Jain has held that service rendered by employees in an ad-hoc or temporary capacity prior to their regular appointment shall not be counted towards the eight-year qualifying service required under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). The Court directed that any benefits already disbursed under CAS based on such service are not to be recovered in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation. However, if employees become eligible for CAS after completing eight years of regular service or qualify under other applicable policies, such benefits shall not be denied.

Justice Jain further permitted the aggrieved petitioners to submit individual representations before the competent authority within thirty days. These representations must be adjudicated within sixty days, taking into account all relevant government orders and judicial pronouncements. The batch of writ petitions was accordingly disposed of.

Also Read: System Failed Her | Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Protect Victim’s Future | Says ‘Law, Society And Family Did Enough Damage’ | Not A Precedent

The lead writ petition, SBCWP No. 14181/2023, was filed by a petitioner seeking senior and selection scale benefits under CAS by counting service from the initial appointment date. The petitioner was initially appointed as a lecturer (Sanskrit) on a temporary basis on 07.07.1986 at Mohta College, Rajgarh, a private institution. This engagement was subsequently renewed at intervals until the petitioner was appointed on probation on 27.04.1989 and confirmed on 25.11.1991. Despite these developments, CAS benefits were not granted, leading to the present writ.

The petitioner also participated in a regular recruitment process conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) and was appointed on 31.07.1996 at Shri Moha Lal Jalan Government College, Ratangarh. The claim for CAS was rejected on grounds of a prior resignation.

Various other connected petitions raised similar contentions:

• SBCWP No. 4378/2019 challenged denial of CAS benefits for the 1995–1997 ad-hoc period.

• SBCWP No. 170/2006 sought directions to consider the initial appointment date for CAS and seniority.

• SBCWP No. 17695/2015 contested an order that excluded 9 days of break in service and disregarded the initial appointment period.

• SBCWP No. 14211/2014 invoked the Apex Court ruling in State of Rajasthan vs. Milap Chand Jain, seeking CAS benefits from initial appointment.

Petitioners, represented by Senior Counsel Mr. R.N. Mathur and others, argued that the UGC introduced CAS for lecturers based on satisfactory continuous service. They submitted that this issue is settled through government orders and judicial pronouncements including State of Rajasthan & Another vs. Milap Chand Jain [(2013) 14 SCC 562], which recognized the entire length of service including ad-hoc and probationary periods, even in private institutions.

It was further argued that AICTE guidelines do not differentiate between types of employment for CAS. Reliance was placed on the Rajasthan Government order dated 01.05.1989 and UGC Guidelines of 1998 and 2010. Cited precedents included:

• State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Dr. Ramnarayan Jha (DB Special Appeal No. 1275/2022)

• Navneet Verma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan (SB Civil Writ No.12332/2016)

• Deshbandu Tyagi & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan (SB Civil Writ No.2658/2005)

• State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Dr. Suresh Chandra (DB Special Appeal No. 1289/1997)

Mr. Tarun Choudhary, counsel for some petitioners, categorized the cases:

• Category I: Impugned recovery orders with interim protection, where recovery must be barred per Zabar Singh Solanki (Civil Appeal No. 8509 of 2024).

• Category II: Denial of CAS due to break in service, citing Anita Kothari (DB Special Appeal No. 1333/2016).

• Category III: Claims based on Milap Chand Jain, asserting that all prior service should be counted.

In opposition, AAG Mr. Vigyan Shah, with Dy. GC Mr. Aditya Singh, cited Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner vs. Zabar Singh Solanki to argue that CAS eligibility is restricted to post-regular appointment service. Government circulars dated 01.05.1989, 18.01.1991, and 19.05.2001 stated this position.

Further, reliance was placed on Rule 2(i) and Rules 22-27 of the Rajasthan Technical Education Service Rules, 1973, defining substantive appointment and service eligibility, mandating regular selection for CAS consideration.

Justice Sameer Jain recorded that "service rendered by an employee in a temporary or ad-hoc capacity prior to regular appointment cannot be reckoned for the purpose of eligibility under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), in accordance with the applicable statutory regulations and judicial precedents."

The Court observed that "the CAS is a policy framework, and its interpretation falls within the purview of the employer, subject to state government directives. Judicial intervention is warranted only if the policy's application is patently perverse or arbitrary."

Addressing recovery, it was recorded: "such recoveries would be inequitable, especially given the lapse of time and the absence of any misrepresentation or fraud by the recipients."

Quoting the Supreme Court judgment in Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, the Court stated: "The CAS was distinct to a general increase or revision in pay-scales. The CAS was intended for a specific purpose i.e., to encourage the teaching staff by offering a higher pay-scale, subject to various conditions."

"The CAS specifically provided that every Lecturer was to be placed in a senior scale of Rs.3000-5000 if he/she had completed 8 years of service after regular appointment."

"To direct for any recovery of monies which may have already been disbursed... would amount to inequity at this late stage."

"Assuming that the respondents are otherwise entitled to any benefit under any other Scheme/Policy, it is directed that the State Government or the appellant will not deprive the respondents thereof by virtue of the instant judgment alone."

The Court referenced Rule 2(i) of the 1973 Rules, stating: "Substantive Appointment means an appointment made under the provisions of these rules to a substantive vacancy after due selection by any of the method of recruitment prescribed under these rules..."

It further remarked that "counting ad-hoc or temporary service rendered by the petitioners towards eligibility for CAS benefits is unjustified unless such consideration aligns with specific orders issued by the State Government."

The Court conclusively held: "Service rendered in an ad-hoc or temporary capacity, prior to regular appointment cannot be counted towards the eight-year service requirement for eligibility under the CAS."

"The interpretation of policy frameworks like the CAS falls within the purview of the employer, subject to state government directives and judicial intervention is warranted only if the policy's application is patently perverse or arbitrary."

"Any payments already made shall not be recovered, provided there was no misrepresentation or fraud by the recipient."

"If the petitioners become eligible for CAS benefits after completing eight years of regular service, or qualify under any other scheme or policy, such benefits should not be denied solely based on this judgment."

Also Read: Madras HC Slams Puducherry Government Over 12-Year Delay | Orders ₹15 Crore Interim Payment In Waste Management Arbitration Case

"The petitioners are at liberty to submit individual representations... within a period of thirty days... Such representations should elucidate their cases within the ambit of various State Government orders and in consonance with the judgment rendered in Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner."

"The competent authority is directed to adjudicate upon each representation on its own merits... within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of such representations."

"The present batch of petitions is disposed of. Stay application and/or pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. R.N. Mathur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhay Singh, Mr. Ajatshatru Mina, Mr. Movil Jeenwal, Mr. Himanshu Kala, Mr. Nripraj Singh, Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Mr. Tarun Choudhary

For the Respondents: Mr. Vigyan Shah, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Yash Joshi, Mr. Aditya Singh, Deputy Government Counsel, Mr. M.F. Baig

Case Title: Dr. Sadhana Kansal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JP:20884

Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14181/2023

Bench: Justice Sameer Jain

[Read/Download order]