STATE OF M P Vs. SUSHMA SURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts of the case are that respondent Shrimati Sushma Surana was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk vide order dated 2.7.1988. In the appointment letter, it was specifically mentioned that she is required to pass Hindi typing test within a period of two years from the date of her appointment. But respondent could not pass the said test. However, period to pass the test was extended from time to time by the State Government. Later on, State Government has issued a Circular on 16.1.1992 and directed that those employees who had been granted extension to pass the Hindi typing test and have not passed the Hindi Typing test after completing the age of 40 years will not be required to pass the Hindi typing test and they will be regularised on the post of Assistant Grade III on regular basis. Accordingly, respondent was regularised vide order dated 15.7.1999. After her regularisation, respondent filed Original Application before the Tribunal stating therein that the period of service rendered by her should be counted towards her service and she should be given regular increments from the date of her initial appointment. Application filed by the respondent was opposed by the State and the State in its reply has pleaded that as per condition of service, respondent was required to pass the Hindi typing test within a period of two years, time was extended from time to time. She was not regularised on the post and no annual increments were paid to her as she has not passed the Hindi Typing test. She has been regularised in terms of the circular of the State Government and she cannot claim regular increments from the date of her initial appointment in the year 1988. Original application was filed by the petitioner (respondent herein) on 24.6.1999 whereas petitioner employee was regularised with effect from 17.5.1999 vide order dated 15.7.1999. Thus, before the order of regularisation could be communicated, original application was filed on 26.6.1999 praying therein that the State be directed to release annual increments and to pay all arrears of annual increments due every year on 11th July, with penal interest and for fixing seniority of the petitioner. Tribunal without considering the condition in the appointment letter has directed the increments ignoring the fact that the period of limitation for deciding the petition is one yet.'" from the date cause of action accrued to the petitioner and allowed the increments with effect from initial appointment of the petitioner employee in the year 1988. Tribunal ignored the condition of the appointment which was the contract of the service whereby respondent was required to pass Hindi typing test within two years. Tribunal without application of mind has allowed the application. Respondent was regularised according to the circular of the State Government dated 16.1.1992 but as the respondent could not fulfil the condition of regular appointment, she is not entitled for annual increments prior to her regularisation as she has not passed Hindi typing test. Tribunal committed grave error in allowing the increments from the date of initial appointment of the respondent. At any rate, respondent will be entitled for increments from the date of her regularisation. Similar question has been decided in the case of Dilnaz Ankle saria and another v. State of M.P. and three others (Writ Petition No. 759 of 1997 decided on 15th Day of July, 1998 at Bench Indore). Therefore, in the light of this judgment, order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law. In the result, petition succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 17.1.2000 passed by the Tribunal in Original Application No. 825/99 is quashed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.