Ad-Hoc Service Not Countable for Time-Bound Higher Pay Scales: Madhya Pradesh HC

Ad-hoc service rendered prior to regular appointment cannot be equated with regular service for the purpose of granting time-bound career progression or higher pay scales. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has solidified the principle that administrative errors in granting premature benefit dates do not confer vested rights, allowing the State to rectify such mistakes for future pay and pensionary computations.

A Single Judge bench of Hon’ble Shri Justice Vivek Kumar Singh presided over the matter, examining a challenge against an order by the Commissioner, Higher Education Department, which revised the petitioner's higher pay scale placement dates after a comprehensive review.

Key Takeaways

Ad-Hoc vs. Regular Service

Service rendered on a temporary or ad-hoc basis cannot be reckoned for eligibility in time-bound scales unless service rules explicitly permit such inclusion.

Rectification of Administrative Errors

The State possesses the inherent power to correct erroneous notional dates or pay fixations, as such errors do not create indefeasible rights in equity.

Judicial Review Limits

High Courts cannot act as appellate authorities over the subjective assessments or gradings recorded by statutory Screening Committees in ACRs.

No Work, No Pay Applicability

Employees promoted notionally from a retrospective date without actual discharge of duties are not entitled to actual arrears of salary.

Ad-Hoc Service and Statutory Compliance

The Court observed that under the M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, the qualifying period for Senior Scale and Selection Grade requires service rendered after substantive appointment. Relying on the precedent set in State of Haryana vs. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association and Punjab State Electricity Board v. Jagjiwan Ram, the Court noted that ad-hoc service prior to regularization on 04.03.1987 could not be counted toward the prescribed eligibility criteria under the Madhya Pradesh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990.

Judicial Deference to Screening Committee Assessments

Regarding the petitioner's grievance over uncommunicated ACRs, the Court noted that following directions in a previous writ, the authorities had communicated the reports and a Screening Committee had reviewed her representations. The Court emphasized that it cannot substitute its assessment for that of an expert body.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is a settled proposition of law that judicial review under Constitution of India, 1950 is directed against the decision-making process, not the subjective assessment of the Selection/Screening Committee. In the decisions rendered in UPSC vs. Hiranyalal Dev and M.V. Thimmaiah vs. UPSC, the Apex Court held that the High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot sit as an appellate authority over the evaluation or gradings recorded in Annual Confidential Reports nor can it substitute its own assessment for that of an expert body/Screening Committee in the absence of established, demonstrable mala fides."

The Court has the following directions:

"Respondents are entitled to maintain the refixed dates of placement in the higher scales for the purpose of correct pay fixation and future pensionary computations. In the light of the Apex Court decision in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) ( "(2015) 4 SCC 334": 2014 CaseBase(SC) 477), if any excess monetary payments have been disbursed to the petitioner over the past several decades solely on account of earlier departmental errors, without any misrepresentation or fraud by the petitioner, no actual recovery of such past excess emoluments shall be effected from her salary or retiral dues."

Ratio

Service rendered on an ad-hoc or temporary basis prior to regular appointment does not constitute 'regular service' for time-bound pay scale progression unless expressly provided by statute. Furthermore, the State maintains the authority to rectify administrative errors in pay fixation, provided that no recovery is made for past excess payments resulting from departmental errors where the employee is not at fault.

Background

The petitioner, Dr. Smt. Gayatri Mishra, joined as a Lecturer on an ad-hoc basis in 1983 and was regularized in 1987. She challenged an order dated 27.03.2024 which shifted her Senior Scale, Selection Grade, and Pay Band-IV dates to later periods based on a review of her ACRs and regular service dates. The State argued that her earlier benefits were granted based on erroneous assumptions, including a Ph.D. status she did not then possess, and that her 'Average' ACR ratings justified the deferment. Citing ICAR vs. T.K. Suryanarayan, the Court held that incorrect promotions contrary to rules do not create a right in equity. The Court ultimately dismissed the petition but protected the petitioner from any recovery of past excess payments based on the principles in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) ( "(2015) 4 SCC 334": 2014 CaseBase(SC) 477).

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION No.10169 of 2024
Case Title: Dr. Smt. Gayatri Mishra Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh & others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Shri Anand Mishra - Authorized person
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Shweta Yadav - Deputy Advocate General

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MP) 36527