Back
2013 Supreme(UK) 332
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
JAGDISH RAM & ORS. – Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. (S/S) 1466 of 2011
Decided on : 03.07.2013
For the Petitioners:Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Alok Mahara, Advocate
For the State : Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Brief Holder
Headnote:U.P. Police Headquarter Circular dated 8.11.1965 — Interpretation of — Claiming the benefit of period of training undergone — Held — Circular dated (November 8, 1965) states that the period of training is a part of the service and had to be counted for the period of pension — But there is a specific exclusion of the benefit of any increment only and there is no other exclusion — Therefore, benefit is liable to be granted to the constable — But, the interpretation of the said circular is that though the period of training inter alia is not counted for period of increment, but will be counted with entire period of service for any other benefit including the benefit of payment of higher pay-scale or promotional pay-scale, as the case would be. (Para 4)
mÙkj izns’k iqfyl eq[;ky; ljdqyj fnukad 8-11-1965 & fuoZpu & izf’k{k.k vofèk ds ykHk dk nkok & /kkfjr Circular fnukad ¼uoEcj 8]1965½ esa dfFkr fd izf’k{k.k vofèk dk lsok dk gh Hkkx gksrh gS ftls isa’ku dh vof/k ds fy, fxuuk pkfg, & ijUrq ,d fof’k”V viotZu gS flQZ osru o`f) ds ykHk ds fy,] vkSj dksbZ viotZu ugha & bl izdkj dkaLVscy dks ;g ykHk feyuk pkfg, & ijUrq dfFkr Circular fuoZpu fd izf’k{k.k vofèk dks osru o`f) dh vof/k ds fy, ugha fxuk tkrk ijUrq ;g fxuk tk,xk lsok dh iw.kZ vof/k ds lkFk fdlh vU; ykHk ds fy, tSls fd mPp osrueku ds Hkqxrku dk ykHk ;k inksUufr osrueku ds fy,A ¼izLrj 4 ½
Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioners before this Court are Head Constables. They are claiming the benefit of circular dated 8.11.1965 issued by erstwhile U.P. Police Headquarter, Allahabad by which the period of training undergone by each one of them as constables in the police department should be counted for the entire length of service, particularly for the grant of next higher pay scale. On the other hand, the State Government is not including the period of training undergone by the petitioners during training which is a period of nine months as “service”. The petitioners rely upon a Circular dated 8.11.1965 issued by Police Headquarter, Allahabad, which is a part of the records. The relevant portion or Circular dated 8.11.1965 reads as under:
“Due to the introduction of fixed pay of Rs.165/- p.m. to recruits during the training period there is some misunderstanding regarding recording of the date of enlistment and counting of service etc. In this connection the following instructions are issued for guidance of all concerned:-
i) LEAVE From the date of enlistment the recruits are to be treated as temporary Government servants and as such the leave rules applicable to the temporary Government servants will also apply to them.
ii) INCREMENT So long as the recruits remain under training and draw fixed pay of Rs.165/-p.m., the question of increment does not arise. They will draw their usual increments when they will be absorbed as constable in the time scale of pay.
iii) PENSION Since fixed pay is sanctioned to the recruits for the training period, they will be considered to have been appointed in service from the date they undergo training. The training period is also considered as service and as such it will count for pension after their confirmation against the substantive and permanent post.
iv) CHARACTER ROLL ….”
2. A bare perusal of the said circular shows that there is a clear order that the period of training must be counted for pensionary benefit, yet there is again a clear order that for the purposes of increments the period of training shall not be counted for the reasons that during training constables get only a fixed pay. The petitioners have been agitating their cause for quite some time. The petitioners were also working in the police department of the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh and after the creation of new State of Uttarakhand under the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, the services of the petitioner have been allocated to new State of Uttarakhand. Their counterparts in Uttar Pradesh are getting benefit by an order dated 8.4.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24910 of 2006, wherein the period of training is to be counted (and is now being counted in U.P.).
3. In Uttar Pradesh there was also some confusion as to whether such period (i.e. a period of training undergone by the constables) should be counted in service and there was some communication which is reflected in the order dated 8.4.2009 of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court (passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24910 of 2006) wherein the Superintendent of Police, Chitrakoot was directed to decide the matter in question in the light of Circular dated 8.11.1965. However, the police department refused to count the period of training in service. Consequently, the petitioners (i.e. constables in Uttar Pradesh) were constrained to file the writ petition and the said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, wherein the interpretation of the said circular dated 8.11.1965 was given as such:
“A perusal of the aforesaid circular, therefore, clearly shows that since fixed pay is sanctioned to the recruits for the training period, they will be considered to have been appointed in service from the date they undergo training. The training period is also considered as service and as such it will be cou
