A
B
c
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.
v.
SHAKRIKHAN
APRIL 19, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Se1vice Law :
Advance Increments to Lower Division Clerks for passing Hindi
Typew1iting Test-Cut-off date-Fixing of-17wse who had p(lSsed the l<st
before the cut-off date alone entitled to advance increments-17wse who
passed the test thereafter not entitled to-Decision taken to appoint candidates
with typew1iting qualification-Need to give additional increments to new
appointees does not arise.
0
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7882 of
E
F
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.1.1994 of the Madhya
Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal at Gwalior in 0.A. No. 323 of 1993.
K.N. Shukla, Prashant Kumar and S.K. Agnihotri for the Appellants.
B.S. Bhanthia for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated January 21,
1994 of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench in
0.A. No. 323/93 and 173/93. The admitted facts are that the respondent
G was appointed prior to 1973. The Government had introduced the scheme
of granting two advance increments for the Lower Division Clerks who
passed the Hindi typewriting test. They prescribed the last date for passing
the test as July 30, 1973 and those who passed the Hindi typewriting test
prior to that date was declared eligible to get two advance increments.
Since the respondent could not pass the test within that period but passed
H
the said test in December, 1979, he filed the O.A. claiming the said benefit
608
STATE v. SHAKRI KHAN
609
on the basis of certain instructions issued from time to time, viz. dated A
April 20, 1974, January 15, 1979 etc. which are marked as Annexure R-3
to the paper book. On that ba,is, it was contended that he is also entitled
to the benefit of two advance increments. On principle, we agreed with the
State that the Government having had the power to extend the benefit it
also has the power to put a cut-off date. Consequently, the cut-off date,
viz., July 30, 1973 for passing the test is a proper classification. All those B
who did not pass the test prior to that date, but appointed earlier to that
date are not eligible to two advance increments on their passing the said
test after the cut-off date.
It is contended that the said order is not insisted upon with regard
to those candidates who passed the test after July 30, 1973. It is made clear
by the respondent that the Government have issued orders for recruitment
of LDCs with the qualification of passing the typewriting test with effect
from that date. Therefore, they did not insist upon passing the test for
advance increments nor such an employee is granted any advance incre-
'
c
ment. It is then contended by the counsel for the respondent that though
those who were· appointed aft~r that date were not given incentive of two D
advance increments, by necessary implication those who are appointed.
earlier are entitl~d to two advance increments as incentive. We do not
appreciate the contention as well-founded. Since the Government have
take.a decision to appoint the candidates with typewriting examination as
a qualification, the need to give additional increments to new appointees,
after the appointment, does not arise. It would arise only in the case of
candidates who were appointed prior to the introduction of typewriting test
as a qualification which was not prescribed earlier but who were given time
for passing the test. The cut-off date was accordingly fixed as July 20, 1973
and those passed the test prior to test date alone were made entitled to
two advance increments and those who passed the test thereafter are not
entitled to the said benefit.
E
F
Though this declaration has been given, since we are informed that
the State has not filed appeals against same orders passed by the Tribunal
in similar cases, the payments made to the respondent is directed not lo
be recovered. This law will be applicable to all pending cases or any G
candidate who approaches the court hereafter.
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
G.N.
Appeal disposed of.
Lex