Annual increment is payable from the date of initial appointment, notwithstanding subsequent completion of mandatory professional training.

The petitioners were appointed as Patwaris following a 2012 advertisement. The Collector, District Sheopur, issued an appointment order on 23.08.2013, followed by a posting order on 31.08.2013.

The appointment was conditional upon passing the Patwari Training Examination within six months. The petitioners joined service, received salaries from their joining date, and qualified in the examination held in October 2013 (results declared on 11.02.2014).

However, the respondents issued a fresh order on 04.03.2014, placing them on a two-year probation starting from that date and treating 04.03.2014 as the initial date of appointment for service book entries and increments.

The petitioners challenged this, noting that similarly situated individuals in District Singrauli received increments from their initial 2013 appointment dates.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to annual increments and regular service benefits from their initial date of appointment (31.08.2013) rather than the date of passing the departmental examination.

Fundamental Rule (FR) 24 mandates that an increment shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course unless withheld by a special order due to specific state disasters.

Under Fundamental Rule (FR) 26, the period of probation is counted for the grant of increments from the initial date of appointment.

Principle of parity, ensuring that employees are not discriminated against when similarly situated persons in other districts (e.g., Singrauli) have been granted the benefit.

The Court found that the respondents failed to produce any rule or policy stipulating that increments are only payable after clearing the Patwari Training Examination.

It noted that the initial appointment orders (23.08.2013 and 31.08.2013) contained no terms deferring seniority or increments until after training.

The Court reasoned that training schedules are within the sole discretion of the State; therefore, delays in sending employees for training or conducting exams are "faults of the respondents" for which the petitioners cannot be penalized.

Since the petitioners were in active service and receiving salary from August 2013, the Court held that the subsequent order dated 04.03.2014, which reset their appointment date, was unjustified and contrary to the original appointment terms and FR 26.

The Court directed the respondents to treat the petitioners' service as regularized from 31.08.2013 and to calculate and pay all arrears of salary resulting from revised increments within three months; failure to comply would attract interest at the rate of 6% per annum.