Kunj Bihari vs State of Haryana and others

L.N. Mittal, J.

C. M. No. 11917-C of 2011

For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 11 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of accordingly.

Main Appeal :

Facts in this case are not in dispute. Plaintiff was promoted from the post of Peon to Clerk vide order dated 31.07.1998. However, the plaintiff has been denied annual increments since then because he did not pass requisite typing test. The plaintiff in the suit sought declaration that he is entitled to all the annual increments since the year 1998 onwards. He also sought mandatory injunction directing the defendants to pay the consequent arrears along with interest.

Defendants resisted the suit by pleading inter alia that the plaintiff having not passed the typing test is not entitled to annual increments in view of condition in the relevant service rules as well as in the promotion order. Various other pleas were also raised.

Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari, vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.2010, dismissed the plaintiff''s suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Rewari, vide judgment and decree dated 02.05.2011. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed this second appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.

Counsel for the appellant, relying on two judgments of this Court i.e. unreported judgment dated 03.09.2001 passed in C.W.P. No. 5566 of 1999 titled Prithvi Raj vs. State of Haryana etc. and in the case of Prem Chand and another vs. The State of Haryana and others reported as 2010 (4) RSJ 694, contended that the plaintiff-appellant cannot be denied annual increments notwithstanding that he has not passed the typing test.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no merit therein.

Relevant service rules i.e. The Haryana Education Department, Sub-Offices College Cadre Ministerial (Group-C) Service Rules, 1995 (in short - the Rules of 1995) prescribe necessary qualifications for appointment as Clerk by direct recruitment as well as by promotion. Appendix-A to the Rules of 1995 specifically stipulates that the Clerk shall be required to pass test in Hindi or English typing at speed of 25/30 words per minute respectively within a period of one year from the date of promotion, failing which next increment shall not be released. Similar condition was also incorporated in promotion order of the plaintiff. In view of this specific provision in the Rules of 1995 as well as in promotion order of plaintiff-appellant, he is not entitled to annual increment without passing of typing test. Judgments cited by counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the instant case. In the case of Prithvi Raj (supra), the petitioner had been promoted on 22.10.1992 vide promotion order dated 10.07.1992. Service Rules of 1995 were not in existence at that time. The relevant rules applicable at that time provided passing of typing test by direct recruits and not by promotees. In these circumstances, condition of passing typing test for annual increment was not applicable to promotee in that case. However, in the instant case, plaintiff-appellant was promoted in the year 1998, when the Rules of 1995 had come into force. In view of said specific Rules of 1995, the plaintiff is not entitled to annual increments without passing requisite typing test. In the case of Prem Chand (supra), the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Service Rules, 1974 were applicable and the same did not provide for passing of typing test, although the Rules provided that the candidate knows typewriting. In this view of the matter, in that case also, passing of typing test for earning annual increments was held to be not mandatory as not stipulated in the relevant service rules. In the instant case, however, relevant service rules i.e. Rules of 1995 specifically stipulate the condition of passing typing test for entitlement of annual increments. The same condition was also incorporated in promotion order of the plaintiff-appellant. In this view of the matter, the plaintiff-appellant is not entitled to annual increment without passing the requisite typing test.

Suit of the plaintiff has, therefore, been rightly dismissed by the courts below. There is no illegality or perversity in the judgments of the courts below. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. On the contrary, relevant service rules i.e. Rules of 1995, as applicable to the plaintiff-appellant, are abundantly clear and admit of no two interpretations. In view of the Rules of 1995, the plaintiff is not entitled to annual increments without passing of requisite typing test. There is thus no merit in this second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.