Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anil Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 24 February, 2011
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
CWP No. 15238 of 2010 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 15238 of 2010 (O&M)
Decided on : 24-02-2011
Anil Kumar
....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. K.K.Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioner makes a grievance out of withdrawal of two increments to which he was entitled to on account of his possessing M.Phil degree as per the instructions of the Finance Department to the Govt. of Haryana which are extracted herebelow:-
"5. Regarding grant of advance increments in lieu of Ph.D/M.Phil at the time of appointment/in service. (I) Provisions regarding grant of advance increments are as under:-
i) Every lecturer with Ph.D or M.Phil be it in the University or College, gets four and two advance increments respectively at the time of initial appointment."
The petitioner who was appointed after due selection by the Haryana Public Service Commission as a Lecturer on 29.6.2002 had CWP No. 15238 of 2010 (O&M) 2 acquired the degree of M.Phil in 2001. A certificate to that effect was issued by the Controller of Examination, Maharishi Dayanand University which also indicated the marks obtained by the petitioner. The petitioner continued enjoying the benefits of these increments till the time the impugned order was passed on 23.7.2010. As a consequence thereof, the benefit was withdrawn from the petitioner and recovery was sought to be effected. The petitioner, thus, is before this court by way of a civil writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India impugning Annexure P-5.
Upon notice of motion having been issued, the respondents have filed a reply wherein they have justified their action by referring to Annexure R-1 which states that the benefit of M.Phil/Ph.D increments and benefit of length of service for senior/selection grade is to be given from the date from which the University certifies the successful completion of all examinations requirements which means the date of issue of notification.
This particular decision was rendered by way of a clarification on the queries ostensibly raised by people who were desirous of knowing the exact date of recognition of these qualifications of M.Phil and Ph.D for the entitlement to the benefit of increments.
By placing an interpretation on this clarification the respondents have taken the date of certification of the passing of the M.Phil by the petitioner to be the date on which the degree was conferred upon him in the convocation held by the University for the said purpose.
Upon due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the action of the respondents is unsustainable. The justification given for withdrawal of the benefit by placing the recognition of the degree CWP No. 15238 of 2010 (O&M) 3 of M.Phil to be the date of convocation can at best be termed to be absurd. The marks-sheet issued by the University and produced by the petitioner at the time of appointment was a sufficient acknowledgment of her acquiring M.Phil qualification. The consequent conferment of the degree in the convocation is merely a consequence of the qualification that a candidate may have acquired prior to such conferment. A convocation is merely a recognition of the achievement of such an incumbent but by no means and by no stretch of imagination can be construed to be the date on which the qualification is acquired.
In a case where Ph.D is acquired the situation may be different as in such cases, there is a notification and which is to be considered as the right date of having acquired the qualification. The respondents were thus palpably in error in passing the impugned order (Annexure P-5) by saying that the petitioner had acquired the qualification on the date when degree was conferred upon him. Apart from that the impugned order has been passed by doing complete violence to the observations made by Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram vs. State of Haryana 2009(4) SLR 298.
For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to the benefit of two increments which have rightly been awarded to him in the first place and the stoppage and withdrawal thereof is held to be illegal.
February 24, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge