PARMANAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the controversy is very short. Shri Parmanand petitioner was earlier a Class-IV employee. He was promoted as Clerk vide letter Annexure P-7. The grouse of the petitioner is that the benefit of increment has not been released to him w.e.f. 1st April, 1999.

(2.) On the contrary, the stand of the respondents is that since the petitioner has not passed the typing test, therefore the benefit of increment cannot be granted to him.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the record of this case. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the appointment letter Annexure P-I and vehemently submitted that in the appointment letter of the petitioner there was no condition imposed by the department that he would have to pass the type test and, therefore, cannot be deprived the benefit of the increment. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the type test for the post of clerk is mandatory and essential and without passing the type test, the petitioner cannot get the benefit of the increment. Meeting the rival contention of his adversary, learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted in the alternative that his client has already undertaken the type test and he has qualified and passed in that test. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is again refuted by the learned counsel for the respondents.