Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1110 (MP)

Ravindra Kumar v. State of M. P.

2017-10-27

S.K.GANGELE

body2017
ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 25.7.2009 [Annexure-P-1] by which, the representation of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner further prayed a relief that this Court direct the respondents to grant increments to the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment along with interest and arrears. 2. Petitioner was appointed vide order dated 27.3.1983 on temporary basis on the post of Stenographer [English] with a condition that he would pass typing and stenography examination within a period of one year. The petitioner did not acquire the aforesaid qualification. He made an application for extension of his appointment. The appointment was further extended for a period of one year with a direction that he would acquire the qualification. He was granted time to acquire the qualification. The last extension was granted to the petitioner on 28.3.1992. He acquired the requisite qualification of shorthand and typing examination on 15.11.1992 hence, his services were regularized in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2340 with effect from 15.11.1992.“First increment was granted to him on 15.11.1993. The petitioner made prayer that he be granted increment from the date of his initial appointment. The matter was referred to the Full Bench because there was difference of opinion. The Full Bench answered following questions of law vide order dated 23.11.2015. The same reads as under : “20. Thus, in view of preceding analysis, reference is answered by stating as follows : (i) Question (A)(a) : An employee appointed in accordance with the Recruitment Rules which makes passing of the Hindi Typing Test essential, would be entitled to increment only after passing such test. (ii) Question (A)(b) : If the Recruitment Rules are silent with regard to entitlement to the grant of increment on passing the Hindi Typing Test, then in such a case if the requirement of passing Hindi Typing Test is incorporated in the letter of appointment, the employee would be entitled to increment only after passing the Hindi Typing Test. (iii) Question (A)(c) : Where the Recruitment Rules provide that preference would be given to the candidate who has passed Hindi Typing Test, in such a case also the employee would not be entitled to grant of increment, if the order of appointment contains such a stipulation. He would be entitled to grant of increment from the date of passing“Hindi Typing Test. He would be entitled to grant of increment from the date of passing“Hindi Typing Test. (iv) Question (A)(d) : Where under the policy as well as letter of appointment provide for passing of Hindi Typing Test, in such a case the employee would be entitled to increment only after passing Hindi Typing Test. (v) Question (B) : If an employee has been appointed under the policy either of compassionate appointment or regularization and if policy provides for requirement of passing Hindi Typing Test essential, the concerned employee would be entitled to benefit of increment only after having passed Hindi Typing Test, even in the absence of such a stipulation in the letter of appointment. (vi) Question (C) : The decisions rendered in the cases of State of M.P. v. Onkarlal [2011(3) MPLJ 404] and State of M.P. and others v. Ku.Ramani Bai Bhagat, 2013(1) MPHT 96, do not lay down correct proposition of law. Accordingly, the reference is answered. “ 3. From the answer of the Full Bench the question (iv), it is held that “where under the policy as well as letter of appointment provide for passing of Hindi Typing Test, in such a case the employee would be entitled to increment only after passing Hindi Typing Test.” 4. In the present case, there was a condition in the initial order of appointment of the petitioner that he shall pass typing and stenography examination within a period of one year. The petitioner did not acquire the aforesaid qualification and when he acquired the qualification, he was regularized and after a period of one year, regular increment was granted to the petitioner. 5. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, there is no merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to the costs.