SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(MP) 688

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.K. Gangele, J.
Dongar Singh Pawar
Versus
State of M.P.
Writ Petition (S) 4148 of 2005 Of
Decided On : May 16,2006

Advocates Appeared:
C.B.Patne, Piyush Mathur, S.P.JOSHI,

Judgment

( 1. ) BECAUSE a common question has been involved in this writ petitions with regard to grant of increments after one year of the regular appointment on account of not passing Hindi typing examination on a condition mentioned in the appointment order. Hence, both the petitions tagged together and heard together and have been decided by this common order. For the purpose of detailed facts the facts of the W. P. No. 4148/05 have been considered.

( 2. ) THE petitioner has filed this petition with regard to grant of regular increments after completing one year from his appointment. As per the petitioner he was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the regular pay scale of Rs. 870-1420/- vide order dated 28-9-89. As per the terms and conditions of the appointment order the petitioner has to pass a typing examination after one year from the date of appointment and upto that period, he would be entitled a pay scale of Rs. 870/- per month and he would not be entitled the increments. The petitioner passed the typing examination in the year of 1995 a certificate to this effect has been submitted as Annexure P-2 issued by the School Education Department and thereafter, vide order dated 24-10-97 the petitioner has been given the increment after one year of passing of the typing examination, thereafter the petitioner submitted a representation that he would be given the benefit of passing of typing examination after one year from the date of his initial appointment and that representation has been rejected. The petitioner also filed a copy of the circular issued by the General Administration Department dated 6-7-95. As per the aforesaid circular, the High Court in W. P. No. 1031/80, decided on 16-8-83 and Administrative Tribunal in T. A. No. 85/88, decided on 1-12-90 directed to grant of regular increments to the employees who did not pass the typing examination and the circular clearly states that those employees who were appointed prior to 22-8-73 in pursuance to the regular selection they would be given regular increments after one year from the date of their initial appointment, even though they did not pass the typing examination.

( 3. ) THE respondents did not file the return in the present petition, but filed the return in other connected petition. The return filed in one of the petition is W. P. No. 4148/05 (S ). The ground has been taken by the respondents is that in the appointment letter it was the condition that the petitioner should pass Hindi typing examination within a year and thereafter he would be entitled the increments after the date of his initial appointment and the Division Bench of Gwalior Bench of High Court in State of M. P. and Ors. v. Sushma Surana and Ors. in W. P. No. 712/2000 has held that when an employee has not passed the typing examination then he is not entitled the regular increments after one year from the date of his initial appointment. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled the same and one of the petitioner has also taken the ground that similarly situated persons have been given the benefit of grant of regular increments in W. P. No. 4148/05.

( 4. ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that non grant of increments after one year from the date of regular appointment is arbitrary and illegal because as per the recruitment rules passing of Hindi Typing examination is not the essential qualification. Further as per the circular issued by the General Administrative Department dated 6-7-95 the employees who were appointed prior to 22-8-73 were given the regular increment after one year from the date of their initial appointment, even though they did not pass the Hindi typing examination. Hence, there is no nexus to fix the date as 22-8-73. It has further been submitted that a similarly situated employee has been given the benefit, hence, the petitioner is also entitled the same benefit. ( 5. ) FROM the facts, stated above, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed reg









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top