Holding

The Court held that redesignated research assistants are not entitled to CAS benefits because the scheme applies only to persons who have completed eight years of service after a regular appointment, and ad‑hoc service does not satisfy this requirement.

Summary

The petitioners were originally appointed as Research Assistants at the University of Udaipur and later redesignated as Lecturers and then Assistant Professors, receiving the same UGC‑recommended pay scale as directly recruited faculty. They claimed entitlement to the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), which provides a senior pay scale to Lecturers who have completed eight years of service after a regular appointment. The University had initially granted the benefit, but the State Government directed that the redesignated staff were ineligible, leading to writ petitions that were upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court examined whether redesignation constitutes a regular appointment and whether ad‑hoc service can be counted towards the eight‑year requirement. It held that CAS applies only to those with eight years of service after a regular appointment and that ad‑hoc service does not qualify, thereby distinguishing the two cadres. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court orders and allowed the appeals, denying the petitioners CAS benefits while preserving their pay for retirement calculations.

Issues considered

Whether research assistants redesignated as lecturers/assistant professors are eligible for benefits under the Career Advancement Scheme which requires eight years of service after regular appointment.
Whether service rendered in an ad‑hoc capacity prior to regular appointment can be counted towards the eight‑year service requirement for the CAS.
How the terms 'regular appointment' and 're‑designation' are to be interpreted under the Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 in the context of eligibility for the CAS.

Legislation cited

Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974s. 12, s. 2(ix), s. 2(j), s. 3
Udaipur University Act, 1962

Subjects

Service LawRe‑designationRegular appointmentAppointment on ad‑hoc basisResearch AssistantsLecturersAssistant ProfessorsCareer Advancement SchemeEntitlement to benefits under the Career Advancement SchemeFulfilment of conditionsDistinction between regular appointment and re‑designation

Judgment

[2024] 8 S.C.R. 175 : 2024 INSC 581

Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner,
Through Its Registrar
v.
Dr. Zabar Singh Solanki and Ors.
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 22278 of 2011)
06 August 2024
[Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
In the Civil Appeals arising from Special Leave Petitions (Civil)
No. 22278/2011 and 22813/2011, the respondents herein are
the Research Assistants, who were designated as Lecturers and
later re-designated as Assistant Professors were deprived of the
benefit of the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). Whether by
re-designating Research Assistants as Lecturers and thereafter as
Assistant Professors, they could be granted the benefit of CAS.
In the Civil Appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 30963/2018, the
respondents herein before their regular appointment as Assistant
Professors in the University, served on an ad-hoc basis in other
educational institutions. Whether services rendered in such ad-hoc
capacity while determining their eligibility for the grant of senior
pay-scale under the CAS.

Headnotes†
Udaipur University Act, 1962 – Rajasthan Universities Teachers
and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 – In the
Civil Appeals arising from Special Leave Petitions (Civil)
No. 22278/2011 and 22813/2011, the appellant has submitted
that merely by re-designating Research Assistants as Lecturers
and thereafter as Assistant Professors, they could not have
been granted the benefit of CAS – This benefit was available
only to Lecturers, who were directly appointed on the posts
of Assistant Professors under 1974 Act and had completed
eight years of service:
Held: On an overall circumspection of the facts and circumstances,
it is clear that upon re-designation of the Research Assistants
as Lecturers/Assistant Professors, they got what was due to
them in the form of the same pay-scale as was applicable to the
* Author
176 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

directly-recruited Lecturers, but once it came to the CAS, the CAS
specifically envisaged that benefit thereunder was restricted to
persons completing 8 years of service after regular appointment –
Only by reason that the respondents were receiving the same
pay-scale as the direct recruits, would not entitle them to get
benefit of CAS as it was subject to fulfilment of certain conditions,
including completion of certain years of service viz. 8 years –
There would be a segregation in the two cadres – Ipso facto,
benefits accorded to one would not accrue to the other unless
so specified in the relevant Scheme, as may be framed by the
employer i.e., State Government/University – It is held that the writ
petitioners/private respondents are not entitled to benefits under the
CAS, as notified by the Government of India vide Letter dated
22.07.1988. [Paras 24, 25]
Udaipur University Act, 1962 – Rajasthan Universities Teachers
and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 – In the
Civil Appeal arising from SLP (C) No.30963/2018, in this case,
respondents, before their regular appointment as Assistant
Professors in the University, served on an ad-hoc basis in
other educational institutions and also in the University –
These respondents preferred a writ petition before the High
Court with a prayer to reckon their services rendered in such
ad-hoc capacity while determining their eligibility for the grant
of senior pay-scale under the CAS – The relief claimed was
granted by the Single Judge and affirmed by the Division
Bench of the High Court – Justified or not:
Held: Notably, the State Government vide its Letter dated
20.09.1994, had specifically clarified that the period of ad-hoc
service rendered by the respondents/Assistant Professors shall
not be counted for giving benefit of senior pay-scale under the
CAS – As elaborated, in the Civil Appeals arising from Special
Leave Petitions (Civil) No.22278/2011 and 22813/2011 that the
CAS is essentially a policy, and as such, the respondents cannot
claim, nor would they have any vested right for claiming that the
clauses therein be interpreted in a particular manner – Such an
interpretative exercise would have to be left, in the domain of the
appellant, subject to the State Government’s directives unless
patently perverse or arbitrary – The High Court, hence, was
not justified in counting of the ad-hoc service rendered by the
respondents for reckoning the period of computation as required
for applying the CAS. [Para 30]
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 177

Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Through Its Registrar v.
Dr. Zabar Singh Solanki and Ors.

Service Law – Regular appointment and re-designation –
Distinction:
Held: The very usage of the term/phrase “regular appointment”
has to be given its proper interpretation and cannot be rendered
redundant or superfluous – Here, there is a distinction between
re-designation and regular appointment – Re-designation cannot
be said to be a regular appointment as it is only that one post/
category/cadre which is given equivalence with another existing
post/category/cadre, but the basic distinction would still lie that the
re-designated post/category/cadre would always be considered to
be an equivalent post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor, whereas the
other/mainline cadre would always be considered to comprise only
of direct recruits. [Para 21]

Case Law Cited
State of Maharashtra v. Tara Ashwin Patel (2016) 15 SCC 717 –
relied on.
State of Rajasthan v. Milap Chand Jain [2013] 5 SCR 472 : (2013)
14 SCC 562; State of Rajasthan v. Dr Suresh Chand Agrawal
[Supreme Court vide judgment/order dated 10.03.2011 in Civil
Appeal No.469/2007] – referred to.

List of Acts
Udaipur University Act, 1962; Rajasthan Universities Teachers and
Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974.

List of Keywords
Service Law; Re-designation; Regular appointment; Appointment
on ad-hoc basis; Research Assistants; Lecturers; Assistant
Professors; Career Advancement Scheme; Entitlement to benefits
under the Career Advancement Scheme; Fulfilment of conditions;
Distinction between regular appointment and re-designation.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.8509 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.01.2011 of the High Court
for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Special Civil Appeal No. 382 of 2002
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 8510 and 8491 of 2024
178 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Appearances for Parties
Puneet Jain, Christi Jain, Mann Arora, Ms. Akriti Sharma, Ms. Pratibha
Jain, Advs. for the Appellant.
Manu Mridul, Pratap Singh Rawat, Surya Kant, Bankey Bihari, Pankaj
Sharma, Pratap Singh Ahluwalia, Ms. Sonal Shukla, Naveen Kumar
Chaudhary, Kartikeya Gautam, Ram Niwas, Nikhil Jain, Ms. Divya
Jain, Prashant Mohla, Santanu Ghosh, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted in all the petitions.
3. Civil Appeals arising from Special Leave Petitions (Civil) 1
No.22278/2011 and 22813/2011 are directed against the common
Judgment and Order dated 20.01.2011, passed by the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur2 in D.B. Civil Special Appeals
No.382/2002 and 470/2002 respectively, whereby the writ appeals
filed by the appellant were dismissed. The Civil Appeal emanating
from SLP (C) No.30963/2018 is directed against the Judgment and
Order dated 04.05.2018, passed by the High Court in D.B. Special
Appeal Writ No.714/2018, whereby another appeal filed by the
appellant came to be dismissed.
BRIEF FACTUAL OVERVIEW:
4. We propose to deal, first, with the challenge to the order dated
20.01.2011. For the sake of convenience, the factual background,
details and status of the parties shall be with reference to the Civil
Appeal emerging from SLP (C) No.22278/2011.
5. Respondents No.1 to 54 were appointed as Research Assistants in
the erstwhile University of Udaipur, renamed as Mohan Lal Sukhadia
University and later on, post-bifurcation, named as the Rajasthan

1 hereinafter referred to as the ‘SLP(C)’.
2 hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 179

Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Through Its Registrar v.
Dr. Zabar Singh Solanki and Ors.

Agricultural University, Bikaner3 (appellant) in the University Grants
Commission4-recommended Pay-Scale of Rs.300-600 prevailing at
the time. On 07.09.1977, the University of Udaipur proceeded to
designate Research Assistants as Lecturers in terms of a Notification
dated 02.07.1974, where the term “Junior Lecturer” was substituted
by the term “Lecturer”. It was notified that teachers holding the post
of Junior Lecturers or equivalent post are designated as Lecturers.
Consequently, Respondents No.1 to 54 came to be designated as
Lecturers. They were also designated as Assistant Professors later
on and began drawing the same pay-scale as admissible to other
Lecturers/Assistant Professors.
6. The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Department of Education vide Communication dated 22.07.1988
decided to implement a Career Advancement Scheme5 to make the
revision of pay-scale of teachers in Universities and Colleges with
effect from 01.01.1986, such that every Lecturer was to be placed
in a senior scale of Rs.3000-5000 if the person had completed eight
years of service after regular appointment.
7. The Government of Rajasthan 6 decided to implement CAS.
Consequent thereto, the Board of Management7 of the appellant in
its Meeting held on 24.11.1988 resolved to give the revised UGC
pay-scales to Lecturers and Research Assistants. The Board further
resolved to designate Lecturers/Research Assistants as Assistant
Professors. However, it was decided that persons appointed as
Assistant Professors directly, will rank senior to the Lecturers/
Research Assistants, so designated as Assistant Professors. The
Board Resolution dated 24.11.1988 was again reviewed by the Board
in its Meeting held on 28.01.1989 and the same was confirmed.
Notification dated 04/06.05.1989 was issued by the appellant to
the effect that all duly selected Lecturers/Research Assistants will
be designated as Assistant Professors with effect from 01.01.1973.
8. The appellant vide Letter dated 22.11.1990 notified Rules for
implementing the CAS for Assistant Professors in the University.

3 hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’.
4 hereinafter referred to as the ‘UGC’.
5 hereinafter referred to as the ‘CAS’.
6 hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Government’.
7 hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’.
180 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

However, on request being made to the State Government to grant
approval to the Resolution dated 24.11.1988 of the Board, the State
Government requested the Vice-Chancellor of the appellant that the
Resolution of the Board dated 24.11.1988 be rescinded. However,
fact remained that in anticipation of the approval, the appellant had
already issued the requisite orders. Thereafter, the Board in its Meeting
dated 29.07.1991, resolved that if any Research Assistant or Lecturer
had been selected as Assistant Professor by the Statutory Selection
Committee,8 then his service period shall be counted from the date
when he was duly selected by the SSC as Assistant Professor.
9. Later, the Deputy Secretary (AP), Government of Rajasthan,
Agriculture (Gr.2A) Department, Jaipur on 27.03.1991 wrote a Letter
requesting the University to amend the Resolution of the Board dated
24.11.1988. It was requested that the order by which Research
Assistants/Lecturers were designated as Assistant Professors be
rescinded and the benefit of CAS be extended only to those Assistant
Professors, who were directly selected after regular selection by the
SSC and not to those who were designated as Assistant Professors.
The recommendations which were made by the University as well
as by the Board were, thus, not accepted by the State Government.
Hence, the Research Assistants, who were designated as Lecturers
and later re-designated as Assistant Professors were deprived of the
benefit of the CAS. Respondents No. 1 to 54 preferred writ petitions
assailing such action(s) and the learned Single Judge allowed their
writ petitions. The learned Single Judge’s judgment(s) were affirmed
by the Division Bench, which is impugned in the instant batch of
appeals.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANT(S):
10. The appellant submits that past service(s) as Lecturers/Research
Assistants cannot be given the same weightage for ex-cadre promotion
as services rendered in the capacity of Assistant Professors. The
grade of Lecturers/Research Assistants is a separate grade, though
the pay may be the same and, therefore, the services rendered in
that grade cannot be considered at par with the services of Assistant
Professors. It was urged that as per the CAS, those Lecturers/

8 hereinafter referred to as the ‘SSC’.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 181

Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Through Its Registrar v.
Dr. Zabar Singh Solanki and Ors.

Assistant Professors are eligible for grant of senior scale, who have
completed 8 years of service after regular appointment and that period
of service has to be reckoned from the date of regular appointment.
It was advanced that, admittedly, respondents No.1 to 54 were not
appointed as Assistant Professors on a regular basis.
11. The appellant has submitted that merely by re-designating Research
Assistants as Lecturers and thereafter as Assistant Professors, they
could not have been granted the benefit of CAS. This benefit was
available only to Lecturers, who were directly appointed on the posts
of Assistant Professors under the Rajasthan Universities Teachers and
Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 19749 and had completed
eight years of service. Further, it was stated that the definition of the
word “teacher” as contained in Section 2(ix) of the 1974 Act cannot
be said to be applicable to Research Assistants. and considering the
non-obstante clause contained in Sections 3 and 12 of the 1974 Act,
the relief of CAS could not have been accorded to the Respondents
No.1 to 54 by granting similar pay-scales.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 54:
12. Learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that a “Research
Assistant ” is also a teacher under the 1974 Act and in the previous
round of litigation, it has already been held that they are Lecturers
under Section 2(j), Udaipur University Act, 1962 and in view of the
clarification issued by the UGC on 27.11.1990, there was not an iota
of doubt that the persons serving as Lecturers or on other equivalent
posts, were also entitled to the benefit of CAS.
13. When the Research Assistants have been re-designated as Lecturers
and thereafter as Assistant Professors, it was submitted that they
cannot be deprived of the benefit available to Lecturers. Learned
counsel would canvass that the CAS does not provide that the
benefit is not available to such incumbents, whose posts have
been designated as Lecturers. The decision was rightly taken by
the Board of the appellant to accord the benefit of CAS, which was
unnecessarily objected to by the State Government. The submission
was that such decision has been illegally reviewed by the appellant,
under the directions of the State Government.

9 hereinafter referred to as the ‘1974 Act’.
182 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION:
14. Having perused the record and heard learned counsel for the parties,
the Court finds that the order dated 20.01.2011 passed by the
Division Bench needs interference. The basic premise for allowing
the claim of the original writ petitioners/instant Respondents No.1
to 54 to the benefit of CAS is that when Research Assistants have
been designated as Lecturers and thereafter as Assistant Professors,
they cannot be deprived of the benefit(s) available to Lecturers.
15. At this stage, it is worthwhile to refer to the earlier order of this Court
dated 25.04.1985 in Writ Petition No.9555/1984 and analogous cases,
whereby it was clarified that the order passed by the High Court
and summary dismissal of the SLP (C) thereagainst, “had nothing
to do with amalgamation of cadres, a common seniority list or a
feeder source for further promotions” and reiterated that “Research
Assistants and Lecturers are separate and distinct cadres.” Further,
the Court went on to state that the only thing common would be that
both would enjoy the same pay-scale as recommended by the UGC.
The Court also observed that “Research Assistants and Lecturers
will form separate cadres” and that “they need not be brought on a
common seniority list only on the ground that both enjoy the same
pay scale as recommended by the University Grants Commission”.
16. Subsequent to the Research Assistants (designated as teachers
holding the post of Junior Lecturers or equivalent post) being
designated as Lecturers, they were later re-designated as Assistant
Professors, drawing the same pay-scale as admissible to other
faculty members like Lecturers/Assistant professors. After this, the
Government of India notified CAS vide Letter dated 22.07.1988
to make the revision of the pay-scales of teachers in universities
and colleges. Every Lecturer was to be placed in a senior scale
of Rs.3000-5000 if he had completed 8 years of service after
regular appointment. In terms thereof, the Board in its Meeting held
on 24.11.1988, resolved to give the revised UGC pay-scales to
Lecturers and Research Assistants. The Board further resolved to
designate Research Assistants and Lecturers as Assistant Professors.
However, it was decided that persons duly/directly appointed as
Assistant Professors would rank senior to the Lecturers/Research
Assistants designated as Assistant Professors. This Resolution was
again reviewed by the Board in its Meeting dated 28.01.1989 and
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 183

Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Through Its Registrar v.
Dr. Zabar Singh Solanki and Ors.

was confirmed, followed by Notification dated 04/06.05.1989 to the
effect that all duly selected Lecturers/Research Assistants will be
designated as Assistant Professors with effect from 01.01.1973. The
Board under Resolution No.245 dated 08.08.1990 approved the rules
for implementing CAS for Assistant Professors and, finally, by way of
the Letter dated 22.11.1990, the appellant notified the said rules. At
this stage, when the appellant requested the State Government to
grant approval to the Board’s Resolution dated 24.11.1988, the Vice-
Chancellor was approached by the State Government to rescind the
said Resolution. Meanwhile, in anticipation of approval by the State
Government, the appellant had already issued the requisite orders.
17. Thereafter, the Board in its Meeting dated 29.07.1991 resolved that
if any Research Assistant/Lecturer had been selected as Assistant
Professor by the SSC, then his/her service period shall be counted
from the date when he was duly selected by the SSC as Assistant
Professor. Once again, under Letter dated 27.05.1992 of the Deputy
Secretary, Agricultural Department, Government of Rajasthan
requested the University to amend the Board’s Resolution dated
29.07.1991, stating that the order, by which the Research Assistants/
Lecturers were designated as Assistant Professors, be withdrawn
and benefit of CAS be extended only to those Assistant Professors
who were directly/regularly selected by the SSC and not to those
who were designated as Assistant Professors. The recommendations
which were made by the University as well as its Board were, thus,
not accepted by the State Government. This prompted filing of various
Writ Petitions in the High Court assailing such action(s).
18. It transpires that earlier also, the matter of these Research Assistants
was before the High Court, where the claim was that Research
Assistants were employed for the purpose of conducting and
guiding research and must therefore be regarded as teachers for
the purposes of Section 2(j), Udaipur University Act, 1962. The said
relief was granted by the learned Single Bench of the High Court,
whereupon the State of Rajasthan preferred an intra-Court appeal
before the Division Bench, where it did not succeed. The learned
Single Judge allowed the respondents’ writ petitions and held that the
period of service rendered by the respondents as Lecturers/Assistant
Professors after re-designation as such, can also be counted while
counting the period of 8 years for availing the benefit of CAS. The
learned Single Judge also took the view that the respondents shall
184 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

be entitled to consequential benefits with the rider that seniority shall
not be given to them over the Assistant Professors appointed directly
and that the respondents would rank junior to the direct appointees.
The Division Bench held that as the post of Research Assistant was
included in the post of Lecturer, a Research Assistant must be held
to be entitled for the same revision of pay-scale which has been
extended to a Lecturer of the University, which was so done. Taking
exception to the Division Bench agreeing with the learned Single
Judge, the State of Rajasthan petitioned this Court too, which again
did not bear fruit for the State.
19. From the above discussion, it is clear that the learned Single Judge
erred in making a fine distinction that the order of this Court in Writ
Petition No.9555/1984 and analogous cases dated 25.04.1985 was
only with regard to the seniority and the existence of a distinct cadre.
Significantly, this order had nothing to do with pay-scales.
20. We find that such a view is justified only to the extent of granting
the respondents pay-scales/revised pay-scales as per the UGC
recommendations. However, 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. This distinction
unfortunately has been lost sight of by the learned Single Judge,
which, in our considered opinion, was a vital factor to be considered.
Whenever a Scheme/Policy is brought into force, ceteris paribus, the
Court could not and would not import something which is not present
therein and which may not be proper to be interfered with, especially
when it relates to financial matters where primacy is required to be
granted to the pay-master as to what scale was to be granted to the
category of staff concerned. By its very nature, such exercise would
fall under the realm of policy-formulation. In the present case, the
CAS itself envisaged that it was meant for persons who were directly
recruited as Assistant Professors. 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.
21. Pausing here for a moment, the very usage of the term/phrase “regular
appointment” has to be given its proper interpretation and cannot
be rendered redundant or superfluous. Here, there is a distinction
between re-designation and regular appointment. Re-designation
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 185

Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Through Its Registrar v.
Dr. Zabar Singh Solanki and Ors.

cannot be said to be a regular appointment as it is only that one
post/category/cadre which is given equivalence with another existing
post/category/cadre, but the basic distinction would still lie that the
re-designated post/category/cadre would always be considered to
be an equivalent post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor, whereas the
other/mainline cadre would always be considered to comprise only
of direct recruits. We find our understanding to be in conformity
with the order of this Court dated 25.04.1985 (supra), where it has
been clarified that the posts of Research Assistants and Lecturers
will form separate cadres.
22. If at all, in law, it was the position that both the cadre of Research
Assistants re-designated as Lecturers/Assistant Professors and the
cadre of directly-recruited Lecturers/Assistant Professors was one
and the same, there was no occasion for this Court to categorically
direct for maintaining separate cadre and the only clarification
which would have been required would be as to how the persons
coming from the two separate cadres would be placed in a common
cadre. But there was no requirement of a common cadre as the
cadres were different and distinct. Notably, the CAS itself restricts
the benefits flowing therefrom to persons who had completed eight
years of service “after regular appointment” – this shows the clear-
cut intent as to which of the two cadres were the subject-matter of
those benefits. Thus, there was no ambiguity in the CAS per se. If
the intention was that the benefits should go across the board to
both cadres, then there was no requirement to restrict it to persons
who had completed eight years of service after regular appointment.
23. Significantly, it is not in dispute that the re-designated Research
Assistants/Assistant Professors (respondents) were never directly
appointed as Lecturers/Assistant Professors. This Court in State
of Maharashtra v Tara Ashwin Patel, (2016) 15 SCC 717 held:
‘9. We have, therefore, examined the present appeals
on first principles. We find from a bare reading of the
two Resolutions dated 25-10-1977 and 27-2-1989 that
for the purposes of career advancement the appellants
had upgraded the post of Demonstrator/Tutor to the post
of Lecturer and it appears that the respondents were
also getting wages for the period of upgradation i.e. from
1-7-1975 to 25-10-1977. However, for the purposes of
186 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

grant of senior scale and, subsequently, for the grant of
selection grade, what was required in terms of the aforesaid
resolutions was actual service or regular appointment in
the post of Lecturer. Thus, the respondents did not have
and they cannot get the benefit of the deemed status of
upgradation from 1-7-1975 to 25-10-1977. The deemed
status was apparently for the purposes of pay and other
allowances and cannot be counted towards actual physical
service rendered by the respondents in the post of Lecturer.’
(emphasis supplied)
24. Thus, on an overall circumspection of the facts and circumstances,
it is clear that upon re-designation of the Research Assistants as
Lecturers/Assistant Professors, they got what was due to them in the
form of the same pay-scale as was applicable to the directly-recruited
Lecturers, but once it came to the CAS, the CAS specifically envisaged
that benefit thereunder was restricted to persons completing 8
years of service after regular appointment. Only by reason that the
respondents were receiving the same pay-scale as the direct recruits,
would not entitle them to get benefit of CAS as it was subject to
fulfilment of certain conditions, including completion of certain years
of service viz. 8 years. Till the time, the CAS as a scheme had not
been interfered with, it was not proper for the learned Single Judge
to interpret the same in a way which would obliterate the distinction
between the two separate cadres. We may also add that had the
intention been that everybody comes on the same platform and
gets all subsequent benefits, there was no requirement of having/
maintaining two cadres. Further, there was no need for this Court
to clarify that the re-designatees and direct appointees would have
separate identities, if for all practical purposes, no distinction was to
be made either on facts or in law. However, this Court clarified that
there would be a segregation as the two cadres would remain, which
is indicative of a difference between the two. Ipso facto, benefits
accorded to one would not accrue to the other unless so specified
in the relevant Scheme, as may be framed by the employer i.e.,
State Government/University.
25. Accordingly, for the reasons aforesaid, these appeals succeed; the
orders in question, passed by the learned Single Judge and affirmed
by the Division Bench, are set aside. It is held that the writ petitioners/
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 187

Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Through Its Registrar v.
Dr. Zabar Singh Solanki and Ors.

private respondents are not entitled to benefits under the CAS, as
notified by the Government of India vide Letter dated 22.07.1988.
26. Needless to state, if the two cadres are given exactly similar
benefits under orders of the Court, then it would amount to doing
something indirectly which cannot be done directly. Moreover, this
was substantially negated in the earlier round of litigation, referred
to above.
27. We may however clarify that to direct for any recovery of monies
which may have already been disbursed to the Respondents No.1
to 54 would amount to inequity at this late stage. Hence, the same
shall not be recovered, but all the pay and emoluments for the
purposes of retiral/service conditions and for post-retiral benefits
shall be reckoned notionally without granting any benefit under the
CAS. 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.
28. The Civil Appeals arising from SLP (C) Nos.22278/2011 and
22813/2011 are disposed of in the above fashion.
29. Onto the Civil Appeal arising from SLP (C) No.30963/2018, which
traces its genesis to the order dated 04.05.2018, passed by the
Division Bench. This was tagged with SLP (C) No.22813/2011 by
order dated 30.11.2018 of this Court. In this case, respondents
No.1 to 9, before their regular appointment as Assistant Professors
in the University, served on an ad-hoc basis in other educational
institutions and also in the University. These respondents preferred
a writ petition with a prayer to reckon their services rendered in
such ad-hoc capacity while determining their eligibility for the grant
of senior pay-scale under the CAS. The relief claimed was granted
by the learned Single Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench
relying on the judgment in State of Rajasthan v Milap Chand Jain,
(2013) 14 SCC 562. This Court, while disposing of Milap Chand
Jain (supra), relied on its earlier judgment dated 10.03.2011 in
Civil Appeal No.469/2007 entitled State of Rajasthan v Dr Suresh
Chand Agrawal, which was dismissed in limine, leaving the question
of law open. Review Petitions (Civil) No.2124-2125/2011 filed in Dr
Suresh Chand Agrawal (supra) were also dismissed by this Court
on 14.09.2011. In Milap Chand Jain (supra), the State of Rajasthan
188 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

had moved this Court in respect of the same impugned order therein,
against which appeals stood previously dismissed by this Court.
30. Notably, the State Government vide its Letter dated 20.09.1994,
had specifically clarified that the period of ad-hoc service rendered
by the respondents/Assistant Professors shall not be counted for
giving benefit of senior pay-scale under the CAS. We have already
elaborated supra10 that the CAS is essentially a policy, and as such,
the respondents cannot claim, nor would they have any vested right for
claiming that the clauses therein be interpreted in a particular manner.
Such an interpretative exercise would have to be left, in the domain
of the appellant, subject to the State Government’s directives unless
patently perverse or arbitrary. The High Court, hence, was not justified
in counting of the ad-hoc service rendered by the respondents for
reckoning the period of computation as required for applying the CAS.
31. However, it is directed that there shall not be any recoveries made
from the respondents. The respondents shall be entitled to the notional
benefit of the pay and emoluments for purposes of calculating their
retiral/service conditions and for post-retiral benefits, but without grant
of any benefit under the CAS. It is clarified that if the respondents are
entitled to benefits under CAS after reckoning eight years of service
from the date(s) of their regular appointment or to benefits under any
other Scheme/Policy, the State Government or the appellant shall not
deny such an advantage to them by virtue of this judgment alone.
32. Accordingly, for reasons aforesaid, the appeal11 succeeds. The orders,
as passed by the learned Single Judge and affirmed by the Division
Bench, are hereby quashed and set aside.
33. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Pending applications are
disposed of in light of the appeals being finally adjudicated on merits.

Result of the case: Appeals allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan

10 In our discussion re the Civil Appeals arising from SLP (C) Nos. 22278/2011 and 22813/2011.
11 Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 30963/2018.