Disposed

Vidyanand Naik v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC4 Mar 2021WPS/1843/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition seeking annual increment from the date of appointment for a petitioner who cleared age but failed the probationary departmental exam. While the court noted the petitioner failed the exam, it directed the authority to consider a claim on parity grounds with a similarly placed official who received backdated benefits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's claim on parity grounds and determine entitlement within 90 days.

Vidyanand Naik Vs State Of Chhattisgarh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 1843 of 2015

¶5

Vidyanand Naik S/o Late Shri Garuda Singh Naik Aged About 55 Years Presently Posted And Working As Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Gharghoda, Police Station And Tehsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Tribal Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Commissioner, Department Of Tribal Welfare, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Project Administrator (Pariyojna Prashashak), Integrated Rural Development Project, Dharamjaigarh, Dist. Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. Dhani Ram Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Alok Buxy, Addl. Advocate General along with Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Panel Lawyer

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

¶14

04/03/2021

¶15

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondents for providing the annual increment to the petitioner for the period between 10.07.1998 to 10.07.2005.

¶16

¶17

The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition is that the petitioner herein was appointed on the post of Additional Assistant Development Commissioner vide the order of appointment dated 26.06.1998. The petitioner on completion of one year's of service and even on completion of the period of probation was not granted the annual increment and which the petitioner, according to him, has finally obtained it in the year 2006. According to the petitioner, he was entitled for the annual increment right from the time of his appointment having being denied an appropriate direction in this regard has to be issued. The petitioner referring to a document enclosed along with the rejoinder submits that a similarly placed person namely Mr. S.C. Gupta in the Department has obtained the same and therefore on the ground of parity, the petitioner's case should also be considered.

¶18

The counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a judgment of this Court in WPS No. 4271/2017 decided on 03.11.2017. It was the further contention of the petitioner that the order of appointment did not have a specific clause, which envisages that in the absence of not clearing the departmental examination, he would not be entitled for the annual increment and therefore the annual increment should had been automatically given to the petitioner and it could not have been held back by the respondents.

¶19

The learned State counsel on the other hand opposing the petition submits that the plain reading of the contentions to the order of appointment itself very specifically mentioned that it was necessary for the candidates who were appointed to clear the departmental

¶20

¶21

examination during the probation period itself. Since the petitioner n the instant case has not cleared the departmental examination, he was not entitled for the annual increment.

¶22

According to the State counsel, in terms of the subsequent relaxation granted by the Department relaxing the said condition for those candidates, who have crossed the age of 45 and the petitioner having crossed the age of 45 in the year 2005 was granted the benefit of increment w.e.f. 2006. Thus the petitioner has got the benefit in accordance with the Rules governing the field and there is no other Rule otherwise produced by the petitioner by which it can be established, and the writ petition therefore being devoid of merits deserves to be rejected.

¶23

Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record, the admitted factual position as it stands is that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 26.06.1998. Clause (2) of the order of appointment specifically mentioned that the appointee would have to clear the departmental examination during the probation period. For ready reference Clause (2) of the order of appointment is being reproduced hereinunder:

¶24

“ 2¼1½ ifjoh{kk vof/k esa fu/kkZfjr foHkkxh; ijh{kk,a mRrh.kZ djuk gksxkA bl vof/k esa dk;Z vlarks”ktud ik;s tkus ij lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh dh lsok ,d ekg dk uksfVl nsdj vFkok mlds ,ot esa ,d ekg dk osru nsdj lekIr dh tk ldrh gSA lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh ;fn viuh ijhoh{kk vof/k ds nkSjku vFkok mlds ckn vius in ls eqDr gksuk pkgrk gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa mUgsa ,d ekg dk uksfVl vFkok mlds ,ot esa ,d ekg dk osru tek djuk gksxkA

¶25

¼2½ mijksDr p;fur mEehn~okjksa ds pfj= lR;kiu esa ;fn dksbZ foijhr Vhdk ik;h tkrh gS rks mudh fu;qfDr fujLr ;ksX; gksxhA ”

¶26

¶27

Admittedly from the pleadings it is evident that the petitioner was not able to clear the departmental examination during the said period. It would now be relevant to take note of the Rule provisions as it stands so far as probation is concerned. For ready reference Subrule (6) of Rule 8 of The M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961 is being reproduced herein under:-

¶28

“8. Probation. -

¶29

(1) xxxxxxxxxx

¶30

(2) xxxxxxxxxx

¶31

(3) xxxxxxxxxx

¶32

(4) xxxxxxxxxx

¶33

(5) xxxxxxxxxx

¶34

(6) On the successful completion of probation: and passing of the prescribed departmental examination, if any, the probationer shall, if there is a permanent post available, be confirmed in the service or post to which he has been appointed, either a certificate shall be issued in his favour by the appointing authority to the effect that the probationer would have been confirmed but for the non-availability of the permanent post and that as soon as a permanent post becomes available he will be confirmed.”

¶35

The aforesaid Rules clearly stipulates that for confirmation on a particular post on completion of probation, it is mandatorily required that the employee should have cleared the departmental examination. As stated earlier, the petitioner in the instant has not cleared the said departmental examination. The State Government meanwhile had issued a circular, whereby this condition of clearing the departmental examination was relaxed by waiving the requirement for all those employees, who cross the age of 45. Immediately on the petitioner crossing the age of 45 years, the respondents in terms of the circular relaxing the condition, has

¶36

¶37

granted the benefit of increment to the petitioner. Having got the benefit after having crossed the age of 45 years, now the petitioner seems to have trying his luck for getting the benefit of annual increment from the date of appointment till the date he has actually got it in the year 2006.

¶38

Surprisingly, right from 1998 till the present writ petition which was filed in the year 2015, there was no serious claim made by the petitioner for the said relief. Neither is there any circular, instruction, guideline or Rules governing the field brought on record by the petitioner to establish his entitlement for the annual increment from the date of appointment, even if he has not cleared the departmental examination, which otherwise he was required to clear during the probation period and which admittedly the petitioner has not cleared till date.

¶39

Given the said facts, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioner for issuance of a writ holding that the petitioner is entitled for the said benefit of increment from the date of initial appointment. However, along with the rejoinder, the petitioner has produced a document, whereby similarly placed person namely Mr. S.C. Gupta seems to have been provided the benefit of the annual increment on his crossing the age of 45 years. However, in the course of implementation, the benefit of annual increment has been given from the initial date of appointment to Mr. S.C. Gupta. Therefore, the respondent No.2 is in the given factual matrix of the case directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with the Rules and also consider as to under what circumstances Mr.

¶40

¶41

S.C. Gupta, a similarly placed person has been granted the benefit of increment from the date of appointment and whether the petitioner also is entitled for the benefit on parity ground or not. Let this exercise be done by the respondent No.2 within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶42

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶43

Sd/(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

¶44

Ved

Vidyanand Naik v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidyanand Naik v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Kumar Choudhary Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Reena Sen Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhansai Sidar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shivnarayan Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

S. P. Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chandra Shekhar Khare Vs Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya