Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Bina Banerjee vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 June, 2016
W.P.No.6426/2015
9.6.2016.
Shri Greeshm Jain, Counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Dy. Advocate General for the
respondents No.1 to 3.
Shri Sidharth Gupta, Counsel for respondent No.4 & 5. Shri J.K. Jain, Counsel for respondent No.6. Heard on I.A. Nos.7227/2016, I. A. No.7228/2016, I.A. No.7232/2016, and I.A. No.7595/2016.
All the applications are allowed.
With the consent of parties the case is disposed of finally at motion hearing stage because it is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the dispute raised in this petition has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.8.2014 (Annexure P.4) passed in W. P. No.12432/2013 (Mahfooz Ahmad and others vs. State of M.P. & others).
The grievances of the petitioners in this petition is in regard to grant of one advance increment as per circular dated 6.2.2006 (Annexure P.1). The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.8,.2014 passed in W. P. No.12432/2013 interpreted Clause 9 of the circular dated 6.2.2006, which is in regard to grant of one advance increment and passed following order:-
20/08/2014 Mr.Greeshm Jain, learned counsel for petitioners.
Mr.Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents no.1 to 3.
Mr. Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for respondents no. 4 to 6.
With the consent of parties matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioners inter alia seek quashment of memo dated 19/08/2011 as well as 07/11/2012 by which their representation with regard to grant of one advance increment has been rejected. The petitioners also seek a direction to the respondents to accord them benefit of one advance increment as per circular dated 06/02/2006.In order to appreciate the petitioners' grievance few facts need mention which are stated infra.
2. The petitioners are working on the post of Private Secretary, Personal Assistant and Stenographer in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at its Principal Seat in Jabalpur and Benches at Indore and Gwalior. Initially the petitioners were working on Manual Type Writers and thereafter for some time on Electric Type Writers till the year 1995. In the month of January 1995 NIC Computer Cell was set-up in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and regular training was imparted to the petitioners on Word Processing, Basics of Computer, Internet, Data Entry and Management etc by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh through NIC Compute Cell established in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioners after obtaining the training started performing the duties on computers by using Word Processing, Basics of Computer, Internet, Data Entry and Management etc.
3. The General Administration Department of Government of M.P has issued a circular dated 06/02/2006 by which computer training was made mandatory for the officers and employees of all the departments of Government of Madhya Pradesh. The aforesaid circular provides that if there is computer in any department and employee successfully completes training within one year, he is entitled for one advance increment in his pay scale. The petitioners in the light of circular dated 06/02/2006 submitted representations dated 08/03/2011 and 20/09/2012 which were rejected vide orders dated 19/08/2011 and 07/11/2012. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have approached this Court.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are entitled to receive one advance increment as they have received training by NIC Computer Cell set up in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the petitioners are successfully operating the computers and are discharging their duties. It is further submitted that circular dated 06/02/2006 does not require any certification in respect of training in the case of petitioners.
5. Learned Government Advocate has submitted that though the High Court is well equipped with the facility of the computer and Ministerial staff appointed in the High Court has been working on the computers and has also sufficient exposure to computer operations but since the petitioners do not have certification in respect of their training and therefore they are not entitled to the benefit of circular dated 06/02/2006. Learned counsel for respondents no.4 to 6 has also not disputed the fact that the Ministerial staff employed in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh is working on computers. However, it is submitted that certification in respect of the training is sine qua non for availing the benefit of the circular dated 06/02/2006.
6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for parties. The sole question involved in this writ petition is about interpretation of Clause-9 of circular dated 06/02/2006.
7. In paragraph 2 of the return filed on behalf of respondents no.4 and 5 it is admitted that NIC Compute Cell has been set up in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for imparting necessary training in computerization services to the staff of High Court. In paragraph 4 of the return it has been admitted that petitioners have been given formal training at the NIC Cell. The State Government in paragraph 5 of the return has stated that High Court is well equipped with the facility of the computer and Ministerial staff appointed in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh have been working on computers and have also sufficient exposure to the computer operations.
8. From perusal of Annexure-P-6 annexed to the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioners, we find that NIC computer Cell of the High Court has been imparting regular training to the Court and Registry Staff on Word Processing, Basics of Computer, Internet, Data Entry and Management etc. It has further been stated that about 500 persons have been trained in last five years. Thus, it cannot be disputed that the petitioners have been working on computers and have sufficient exposure to computer operations.
The petitioners admittedly have also received the training in NIC Computer Cell of High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
9. Clause-9 of Circular dated 06/02/2006 issued by General Administration Department reads as under:-
^^,sls foHkkx tgka dEI;wVj miyC/k gS esa ,d o"kZ esa lQyrkiwoZd izf"k{k.k iwjk djus ij ,d vfxze osru o`f) ,oa tgka dEI;wVj ugha gS ogka rhu o"kZ esa lQyrkiwoZd izek.khdj.k izkIr djus ij ,d vfxze osru o`f) Lohd`r dh tk,xhA^^ Thus, from scrutiny of Clause-9 of Circular it is evident that in a department where computer is available, if an employee successfully completes training in one year, he shall be entitled to one advance increment and in case in a department where computer is not available, if an employee completes training within three years, on due certification, he shall be entitled to one advance increment. In other words in a department where the computer is available, if an employee receives training within one year, he becomes entitled to one advance increment and such entitlement is not dependent on completion certificate. Admittedly, the High Court is well equipped with the facility of computer and the petitioners have received training in NIC Computer Cell set up in Madhya Pradesh High Court, therefore in our considered opinion, there is no requirement of obtaining any certification in respect of the training in case of petitioners and the interpretation put forth by the respondents on the circular dated 06/02/2006 cannot be accepted.
9. In view of preceding analysis impugned memo dated 19/08/2011 as well as 07/11/2012 are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to accord the benefit of one advance increment to the petitioners from the date on which the petitioners have become entitled to such benefit, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
10. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed."
The order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W. P. No.12432/2013 has been affirmed vide order dated 27.11.14(Annexure-P.5) passed in S. L. P. (C) No.32222/2014, by the Supreme Court.
The Law and Legislative Affairs Department in view of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court written a letter dated 23.1.2016 to the Registrar General, High Court of M. P., the same reads as under :
^^ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; vuqlkj dEI;wVj izf'k{k.k ij ,d vfxze osruo`f) fn;s tkus laca/kh vkns'k fnukad 27-11-2014 ds laca/k esa ys[k gS fd dEI;wVj izf'k{k.k izkIr deZpkfj;ksa dks ,d osruo`f) fn;s tkus laca/kh lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx dk ifji= fnukad 06-02-2006 tks ifji= fnukad 26-09- 2014 }kjk fujLr fd;k x;k gS] fdUrq fnukad 26-09-2014 ds iwoZ ftu deZpkfj;ksa }kjk ifji= fnukad 06-02-2006 dh dafMdk&9 dh iwfrZ dh xbZ gS] mUgsa osruo`f) dh ik=rk gksxhA^^ rn~uqlkj lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx dk vfHker ,oa ifji= fnukad 26-09-2014 leqfpr dk;Zokgh gsrq lknj izsf"kr gSA ^^ Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners, who are similarly situated to the petitioners of W. P. No.12432/2013, are also entitled for the same relief. He placed his reliance on the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Arvind Kumar Shrivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347), in which it is held as under:
"(i) The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by the Supreme Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore the normal rule would be that mere by because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not be treated differently.
It is a fact that Division Bench of this Court passed an order in favour of certain employees of the High Court in regard to grant of one advance increment and the present petitioners are similarly situated to the petitioners of that writ petition.
The dispute raised in this petition has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.8.2014 passed in W. P. No.12432/13 and affirmed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 27.11.2014 in S. L. P. (C) No.32222/2014 and in compliance of the order dated 27.11.2014, Law and Legislative Department has also passed the order dated 23.1.2016 granting one advance increment.
In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the Competent Authority/respondent No.4 and 5 shall consider the claim of the petitioners in regard to grant of one advance increment as granted to the petitioners in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W. P. No.12432/13, letter dated 23.1.2016 quoted above in this order and the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Arvind Kumar Shrivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347) within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
No order as to costs.
C. C. as per rules.
(S.K. Gangele) (C.V.Sirpurkar)
V.Judge V.Judge
vj