Past emergency service must be counted for selection-grade and pension benefits, but not seniority.

The petitioner, an Assistant Professor (Home Science), was initially appointed on an emergency basis in 1987.

During the continuance of that appointment, she appeared in an examination conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission and was thereafter appointed afresh by order dated 13 November 1996.

She claimed that her past emergency service from 14 December 1987 was not counted for grant of senior-grade and selection-grade pay scales, pay fixation, or consequential arrears.

Relying on the decision in Dr. Deepak Kumar Shukla & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, WPS No. 8375 of 2018, decided on 6 January 2023, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 2 February 2026 seeking the aforesaid benefits, but it remained pending.

The State raised no objection to a direction for consideration of the representation.

1. Whether the petitioner’s past service rendered as an Assistant Professor on emergency basis was liable to be considered for grant of senior-grade and selection-grade pay-scale benefits, in light of the decision in Dr. Deepak Kumar Shukla?

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation after verifying her eligibility and the applicable government and University Grants Commission policies?

The Court applied the principles laid down in Dr. Deepak Kumar Shukla & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, WPS No. 8375 of 2018, decided on 6 January 2023.

Under that decision, past service rendered on emergency appointment is required to be added for determining eligibility for selection grade and pension, subject to fulfilment of all applicable conditions under the relevant State Government and University Grants Commission policies; such past service is not to be counted for seniority.

The authority must independently examine the individual employee’s eligibility and entitlement, and the precedent does not automatically confer selection-grade benefits without verification of the prescribed requirements.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s factual claim—initial emergency appointment followed by fresh appointment after selection—was materially similar to the circumstances considered in Dr. Deepak Kumar Shukla.

However, the earlier decision required examination of each petitioner’s eligibility under the applicable policies and did not itself grant the benefit as an automatic entitlement.

Since the petitioner’s representation was pending and the State had no objection to its consideration, the Court considered it appropriate not to adjudicate the substantive entitlement directly.

Instead, it directed the petitioner to submit a fresh, comprehensive representation with supporting documents, requiring the competent authority to examine the claim in light of the precedent and after verification of the relevant records and applicable rules.

The petitioner was permitted to submit a fresh comprehensive representation, along with supporting documents, to the concerned authority.

The authority was directed to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law, keeping in view Dr. Deepak Kumar Shukla, after verifying the relevant material, preferably within two months from receipt of the representation.

The Court therefore granted procedural relief for consideration of the claim, while leaving the petitioner’s substantive eligibility and entitlement to be determined by the competent authority.