JAGDISH RAM Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners before this Court are Head Constables. They are claiming the benefit of circular dated 8.11.1965 issued by erstwhile U.P. Police Headquarter, Allahabad by which the period of training undergone by each one of them as constables in the police department should be counted for the entire length of service, particularly for the grant of next higher pay scale. On the other hand, the State Government is not including the period of training undergone by the petitioners during training which is a period of nine months as "service". The petitioners rely upon a Circular dated 8.11.1965 issued by Police Headquarter, Allahabad, which is a part of the records. The relevant portion or Circular dated 8.11.1965 reads as under: "Due to the introduction of fixed pay of Rs.165/ - p.m. to recruits during the training period there is some misunderstanding regarding recording of the date of enlistment and counting of service etc. In this connection the following instructions are issued for guidance of all concerned: -

(2.) A bare perusal of the said circular shows that there is a clear order that the period of training must be counted for pensionary benefit, yet there is again a clear order that for the purposes of increments the period of training shall not be counted for the reasons that during training constables get only a fixed pay. The petitioners have been agitating their cause for quite some time. The petitioners were also working in the police department of the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh and after the creation of new State of Uttarakhand under the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, the services of the petitioner have been allocated to new State of Uttarakhand. Their counterparts in Uttar Pradesh are getting benefit by an order dated 8.4.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of Honble Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24910 of 2006, wherein the period of training is to be counted (and is now being counted in U.P.).

(3.) IN Uttar Pradesh there was also some confusion as to whether such period (i.e. a period of training undergone by the constables) should be counted in service and there was some communication which is reflected in the order dated 8.4.2009 of Honble Allahabad High Court (passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24910 of 2006) wherein the Superintendent of Police, Chitrakoot was directed to decide the matter in question in the light of Circular dated 8.11.1965. However, the police department refused to count the period of training in service. Consequently, the petitioners (i.e. constables in Uttar Pradesh) were constrained to file the writ petition and the said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge of the Honble Allahabad High Court, wherein the interpretation of the said circular dated 8.11.1965 was given as such: "A perusal of the aforesaid circular, therefore, clearly shows that since fixed pay is sanctioned to the recruits for the training period, they will be considered to have been appointed in service from the date they undergo training. The training period is also considered as service and as such it will be counted for pension after their confirmation against the substantive and permanent post. Though this has been stated in the context of pension but as it mentions that the recruits will be considered to have been appointed in the service from the date they undergo training and this training period should also be considered as service period, there is no logical reason as to why the said period spent in training should not be counted for the purposes of granting other benefits. It needs to be mentioned that Clause (ii) of the aforesaid circular only prohibits grant of increment during the training period since during this period they draw a fixed pay but it has also been mentioned that they will draw their usual increments when they are absorbed as Constable in the pay scale. The benefit of training period for calculating the service period for grant of promotional pay scale cannot be denied only because this particular aspect has not been dealt with in the aforesaid circular dated 8th November, 1965 as it is in the intention behind the issuance of the circular that has to be seen. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel, therefore, that the counting of the training period should be restricted for pension purposes, cannot be accepted and nor is the reason assigned in the order dated 11th May, 2006 on the basis of Clause (ii) of the circular for not counting the training period a valid reason. The note dated 28th March, 2007 sent by the Financial Controller, U.P. Police Headquarters, Allahabad mentions that the training period should be counted only for the purpose of pension and post retirement benefits but no for any benefits during the service period. This direction contained in the aforesaid not is contrary to the earlier circular dated 8th November, 1965 which provides that the recruits should be treated to have been appointed in the service from the date they undergo training and this period should also be considered as period spent in service. Thus, for the reasons stated above, the respondents are not justified in not counting the period spent in training for the purposes of calculating 24 years of service for grant of promotional pay scale to the petitioners. The writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to count the training period of the petitioners for the purposes of granting second promotional scale."