Ad-Hoc Service with Breaks Not Counted for Increment Purposes.

The applicant, Ram Briksha Singh, worked as a Primary Teacher (PRT) on an ad-hoc basis at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ramagundam, Andhra Pradesh, during three broken spells: 26.09.1984 to 30.04.1985, 15.07.1985 to 30.04.1986, and 01.08.1986 to 30.10.1986

Subsequently, he received an appointment letter dated 22.10.1986 for a temporary post of PRT and joined service on 03.11.1986 at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Air Force Station, Bidar, Karnataka

The applicant claimed that Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan (KVS) issued a circular dated 25.04.1989 (though not produced by either party) regarding counting ad-hoc service for increments

He submitted a representation on 01.09.2008 for increment benefits based on his ad-hoc service, which remained undecided

He then filed OA No. 1699/2013 before the Tribunal, which directed a reasoned order on his representation

In compliance, the respondents passed an impugned order dated 28.03.2014, rejecting his claim

The applicant further highlighted a similar case, J.P. Pandey vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (OA No. 216/2002), where the CAT, Jabalpur Bench, allowed counting ad-hoc service for pay fixation, a decision upheld by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh

The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding limitation, arguing that the applicant's representation in 2008 came after more than 22 years of his ad-hoc service, and his current OA after 6 years of his representation

They also contended that the 1989 circular was not applicable to the applicant's temporary ad-hoc service, which was terminated at the end of each academic year

1. Whether the applicant's claim for counting his ad-hoc service for increment purposes is barred by limitation

2. Whether the ad-hoc service rendered by the applicant in broken spells, being purely temporary and terminated at the end of academic years, qualifies for increment benefits under the KVS circular dated 25.04.1989 and F.R. 26

The court primarily considered the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan circular dated 25.04.1989, which, as quoted in a previous judgment (J.P. Pandey vs KVS), states that "short spells of ad-hoc services rendered at the same stage in identical or same scale of pay would count for the purpose of increment under the provision contained in FR-22 and also elaborated under Govt. of India decision no.9, below FR-26"

It also applied F.R. 26, which prescribes conditions for service counting for increments in a time-scale, notably stating that "All duty in a post on a time-scale counts for increments in that time-scale"

Further, it referenced the Government of India’s Order No. 9 below F.R. 26, which dealt with SAS Accountants drawing pay in their scale while holding excluded posts counting towards increment in their scale

Crucially, the court noted that F.R. 26 does not cover periods during which an employee is not in service

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's prior OA No. 1699/2013 was merely to decide a pending representation, not to adjudicate the claim itself, and that his representation in 2008 was filed more than 22 years after his ad-hoc service, raising a significant limitation issue

While the 1989 circular was cited, it was neither produced by the applicant nor the respondents

The respondents consistently maintained that the circular was misinterpreted by the applicant and applied to regular employees promoted ad-hoc to higher posts, not to temporary ad-hoc appointments whose services were terminated at the end of an academic year

The impugned order dated 28.03.2014 specifically stated that "broken spells of adhoc services rendered by an employee does not qualify for counting for increment purpose"

The court emphasized that the applicant's ad-hoc service was in broken spells, with his services being terminated at the end of each academic year

F.R. 26, which governs increment counting, does not cover periods when an employee is not in service

Therefore, the periods where the applicant was not in service between his broken spells could not be counted for increment purposes, and the respondents' decision aligned with these provisions

The case of J.P. Pandey was distinguished, as it involved challenging an order in 2002 for an order issued in 2001, whereas the present applicant first approached the Tribunal in 2013 regarding a 2008 representation for ad-hoc service from 1984-1986

Consequently, no interference was warranted in the respondents' decision to not consider these broken spells for increment purposes

The instant Original Application was dismissed