DSB appointments and
increments
DSB appointments in the medical
colleges run by the State of Maharashtra were effected in absence of any move
by the State to fill in the vacant posts through MPSC and to address the need
of the hour. However, the Government had followed all the norms as applicable
to regular appointments including maintaining reservations as per the roaster. Presently
the services are removed from the purview of MPSC.
It is pertinent to note that all the
appointments effected by the DSB are in pay scale. Rule 9(55)(a) of the MCS Pay
Rules 1981 defines time scale pay as a pay which rises by periodical
increments.
Other relevant rules governing pay
on ad-hoc officiating a post are to be interpreted with the conditions
prescribed by those rules on individual assessment of service of concerned
employee; however, in view of various government resolutions providing policy
decisions of the State to extend benefit of increments to all ad-hoc employees
officiating on pay scale, the stringent conditions stand diluted.
The aspect of legality of ad-hoc
appointments by the Government is concluded by the honourable Constitution
Bench of the honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Secretary, State
of Karnataka versus Uma Devi and others. The honourable constitutional bench has
consciously distinguished irregular appointments and illegal appointments. The
appointments made by an agency, not provided by the recruitment rules, if are
otherwise effected by following all the procedure provided for such
recruitment, are held as irregular and not illegal and a direction to
regularize services of these employees is issued to all the states.
In the case of Teachers in Medical
Colleges, the aspect of legality of
appointments of ad-hoc Teachers in medical colleges and their entitlement
was considered by the MAT, firstly, in the case of Dr. Anil Sakhare and it was
held that he was entitled to claim the benefit of increments and leave. This
decision was never challenged by the State. Considering the said fact, in the
case of Dr. Satyanarayan Punpale, the challenge raised by the State to similar
order passed by the MAT was dismissed.
In the meanwhile, same issue was carried by the State in the case of Dr.
Sangita Phatale, to honourable Supreme Court. The said challenge is rejected by
the honourable Supreme Court. Thereafter, the right of DSB appointees to
increments and leave benefits is consistently protected by various judicial
pronouncements and in given cases such appointees are even regularized in
services by judicial orders.
Thus, it is crystal clear that, even
an employee appointed by the DSB is entitled for increments and leave benefits unless
his appointment is shown as a backdoor entry and breaks in service were actual
physical loss of service and not paper breaks.
Thus, DSB employees appointed on pay
scale are very well entitled for increments.
Milind Patil
VAKILSAHEB
