Class-III Judicial Employees Who Completed Computer Training Between 2006–2014 Gain Accrued Right To One Advance Increment: MP High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal held that Class III judicial employees who completed computer training between February 6, 2006 and the withdrawal of the 2006 circular in September 2014 are entitled to one advance increment as an accrued right. The petitions challenged the denial and later withdrawal of the increment after authorities cited the circular’s annulment. Allowing the petitions, the court directed grant of the increment with arrears and revision of Pension Payment Orders for retirees. It said employees appointed before computer proficiency became a recruitment qualification were trained for computerised duties and received the increment on successful completion.
The batch of writ petitions was instituted by serving and retired judicial employees working in district courts across Madhya Pradesh. The petitioners challenged the withdrawal of one advance increment earlier granted for successful completion of computer training. The training had been imparted pursuant to a circular dated 6 February 2006 issued by the General Administration Department of the State, which provided for grant of one advance increment to Class-III employees upon completion of certified computer training.
The petitioners contended that they had undergone such training during the period when the circular remained in force and that their training was duly certified by the Principal District Judge. The benefit was subsequently withdrawn based on a later circular dated 26 September 2014, which annulled the earlier circular, and a clarification issued by the Finance Department on 4 February 2020.
The respondents argued that after amendment of recruitment rules, computer qualifications became mandatory and that no advance increment could be granted once the 2006 circular stood annulled. The dispute thus centred on whether employees who completed training between 6 February 2006 and 26 September 2014 retained entitlement to the advance increment despite subsequent withdrawal of the policy.
The Court noted at the outset that “the issues involved in the captioned writ petitions are similar in nature; therefore, they are being decided by this common order.” It recorded that the petitioners were appointed at a time when computer knowledge was not an essential qualification and that computer training was later introduced to facilitate computerisation of court functioning.
Referring to the 2006 circular, the Court observed that “as per Clause 9 of the circular dated 06.02.2006, in departments where computers were available, after completing one year of successful training, one advance increment would be granted.” The Court also took note of an earlier coordinate bench decision extending similar benefits to other employees.
On the effect of withdrawal of the circular, the Court stated that “the circular dated 06.02.2006 remained valid till 26.09.2014; therefore, during that period, those who underwent training are certainly entitled to the benefit of the advance increment.” It recorded that the Administrative Committee of the District Court had already recommended grant of the increment and that “a right had already been created in favour of the petitioner.”
Addressing the State’s contention regarding amended recruitment rules, the Court observed that “after 26.09.2014, the Recruitment Rules were duly amended and newly recruited Class-III employees were selected with computer knowledge; therefore, there was no question of granting an advance increment.” However, it clarified that this could not affect employees appointed earlier, for whom training was introduced subsequently.
The Court further recorded that “those who were appointed when no qualification for computer knowledge was prescribed were required to undergo training to encourage them to deal with computer work.” It held that subsequent administrative clarifications could not retrospectively nullify benefits that had accrued during the validity of the 2006 circular.
The Court directed that “all the captioned writ petitions as well as contempt petition are allowed.” and “the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the advance increment, as certified by the Principal and District Judge, for those who underwent training between 06.02.2006 and 26.09.2014.”
Considering that several petitioners had retired, the Court further held that “they shall be given arrears of salary as well as arrears of pension.” and “their Pension Payment Orders (PPOs) shall be revised accordingly.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri Shailendra Verma, Advocate; Shri Harsh Gupta, Advocate; Shri Qasim Ali, Advocate; Shri Anuj Agrawal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri Abhijeet Awasthi, Deputy Advocate General; Shri Piyush D. Dharmadhikari, Advocate; Ms. Amrit Kaur Ruprah, Advocate; Shri Satyendra Kumar Patel, Advocate; Shri Akash Choudhury, Advocate
Case Title: Rakesh Verma v State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 10532 of 2020 and connected matters
Bench: Justice Vivek Rusia, Justice Pradeep Mittal
