Ashok Kumar Pal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Anand Singh Bahrawat, J

This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed seeking following relief(s):

"i) That, the order dated 4.12.2014 (Annexure P/12) passed by respondent no.2 may kindly be set aside to the extent it denies the benefit of increment to the petitioner from the year 2005 to 2010.

ii) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the benefit of increment to the petitioner from the date of promotion on the post of MPW i.e. 16.11.2005.

iii) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to carry out the correct pay fixation of the petitioner.

iv) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to grant all the consequential benefits to the petitioner and the payment of arrears of the increment from the year 2005 to 2010 alongwith interest.

v) Any other suitable direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed."

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed on the post of Peon-cum-Chowkidar under the Contingency Fund in the Health and Family Welfare Project, Bhind vide order dated 14.09.1989. It is further submitted that thereafter, petitioner was appointed on the post of Ward Boy in the regular pay scale of Rs.2550-55-2660-60-3200 vide order dated 24.12.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) vide order dated 16.11.2005. Petitioner submitted his joining on the promotional post vide joining letter dated 18.11.2005. After joining, petitioner continuously performed his duties as Multipurpose Health Worker (Male); however, he was not granted the benefit of annual increments from the date of his promotion. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 issued a letter dated 28.07.2006 to the Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Guna whereby petitioner, along with other seven employees, was sent to Guna for Multipurpose Health Worker Training (Annexure P/5). Pursuant to aforesaid letter, petitioner was relieved for participating in the training vide order dated 31.07.2006. Petitioner reported at the Training Centre at Guna along with all requisite documents; however, the CMHO, Guna vide letter dated 05.08.2006 sent back the petitioner and four other employees on the ground that they did not possess the requisite educational qualifications, namely Higher Secondary with Biology, Physics and Chemistry under the old scheme or High School with Science or Higher Secondary with Biology under the current scheme. It is further submitted that petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications for the said training, as he had passed the Higher Secondary Examination with Agriculture, Botany, Zoology and Physics-Chemistry in March-April, 1986 (Annexure P/8). It is further submitted that petitioner was again sent for training vide letter dated 05.10.2009 and this time he successfully completed the training. Consequently, a training completion certificate dated 29.07.2011 was issued to him by the respondents. It is further submitted that petitioner was wrongly denied training on the earlier occasion despite possessing the requisite qualifications and subsequently the respondents themselves corrected their mistake by accepting the same educational qualifications and permitting the petitioner to undergo training in the year 2009. It is further submitted that though petitioner was promoted in the year 2005 but he was denied annual increments after promotion. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representations dated 30.07.2011 and 29.11.2014. However, vide order dated 04.12.2014, the representation of petitioner was rejected on the ground that he had not completed the training within one year from the date of promotion i.e., 16.11.2005. It is further submitted that petitioner had already been sent for training vide order dated 28.07.2006 but due to the fault of the respondents, he could not complete the training at the relevant time. It is further submitted that the respondents themselves committed an error in sending him back from the training centre in the year 2006 despite the petitioner possessing all requisite qualifications. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the mistake committed by the respondents themselves and he is entitled to annual increments from the year 2005. It is further submitted that neither the appointment order nor any recruitment rules prescribed a condition of passing the Multipurpose Health Worker Training. The only stipulation was contained in the promotion order, which provided that increments would be payable after passing the Multipurpose Health Worker Training examination. It is further submitted that petitioner was always ready and willing to undergo the training, but due to the fault of the respondents, he could not complete the training within time. Hence, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the fault of the respondents and is entitled to annual increments from the year 2005.

3 . Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/State submits that petitioner was promoted from the Class-IV post of Ward Boy to the post of Multipurpose Health Worker vide order dated 16.11.2005, which specifically contained a condition that increments on the promotional post would be granted only after completion of the one-year training course. It is further submitted that petitioner completed the said training course only in the year 2011 and therefore, vide order dated 19.12.2018, increments were rightly granted to petitioner from 28.06.2011, i.e., the date of completion of the training course. It is further submitted that the condition mentioned in the promotion order is binding upon the employee. Reliance has also been placed upon the Full Bench decision in Manoj Kumar Purohit v. State of M.P. reported in MPLJ 2016 (1) 449, to contend that the petitioner is not entitled to increments prior to completion of training.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Indisputably, petitioner was promoted to the post of Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) vide order dated 16.11.2005 and continuously discharged his duties on the said post. It is also not disputed that petitioner possessed the requisite educational qualifications for undergoing the Multipurpose Health Worker Training since the year 1986. Petitioner was sent for training in the year 2006 but he was wrongly sent back by the respondents despite possessing the required qualifications. Subsequently, on the basis of the same qualifications, petitioner was again sent for training in the year 2009 and successfully completed the same in the year 2011. Thus, the delay in completion of training occurred due to the fault of the respondents and not due to any lapse on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the mistake committed by the respondents themselves and is entitled to annual increments from the date of promotion i.e., 16.11.2005.

As the respondents have not filed any para-wise reply to the petition, the submissions of petitioner regarding possession of the requisite educational qualifications for the training i.e. Higher Secondary Education with Agriculture, Botany, Zoology, Physics and Chemistry since April, 1986, have not been disputed. In para 5.9 of the petition, the petitioner has specifically stated that he possessed the requisite educational qualifications from the date of his promotion to the post of Multipurpose Health Worker and the same has not been rebutted by the respondents in their return. Thus, it is evident that there was no fault on the part of petitioner in not completing the training within time and petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the mistake committed by the respondents themselves.

Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the rival parties, coupled with the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed and disposed of in the following manner:

(i) The respondents are directed to grant annual increments to the petitioner from 16.11.2005 onwards;

(ii) The respondents are further directed to revise the pay of the petitioner and grant all consequential benefits, including arrears along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the respondents shall pay interest @ 12% per annum to the petitioner.