Annual increment is payable from the date of passing the Hindi Typing Test, not one year thereafter.

The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade-III on compassionate grounds on 29 August 1989, subject to passing the Hindi Typing Examination within one and a half years.

The appointment order did not expressly provide that annual increments would accrue only after passing the examination.

The petitioner passed the Hindi Typing Examination on 21 July 1992.

However, the respondents granted him the annual increment with effect from 20 January 1993, rather than from the date on which he passed the examination.

The petitioner challenged the denial of the increment from 21 July 1992 and sought consequential pay fixation, arrears, interest, and costs under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to an annual increment from the date of his initial appointment, i.e., 29 August 1989, on the ground that the typing qualification related back to the date of appointment?

Whether, having passed the Hindi Typing Examination on 21 July 1992, the petitioner was entitled to the annual increment from that date, rather than from 20 January 1993, one year after acquiring the qualification?

The Court applied the Full Bench decision in Manoj Kumar Purohit and Others v. State of M.P. and Others, reported in 2016 (1) MPLJ 449, holding that where the applicable Recruitment Rules or appointment order make passing the Hindi Typing Test a prerequisite, an employee becomes entitled to an increment only after passing the test; the qualification does not relate back to the date of appointment.

The Court also relied on the Division Bench decision in Anuroop Singhai and Others v. State of M.P. and Others, W.A. No. 37 of 2018, decided on 19 February 2018, which clarified that the increment must be granted from the date of qualifying the typing examination itself and cannot be deferred for one year thereafter.

The petitioner’s appointment was conditional upon passing the Hindi Typing Examination, but the appointment order did not stipulate that increments would be withheld until the examination was passed.

Applying Manoj Kumar Purohit, the Court rejected any claim to an increment from the initial appointment date because passing the examination did not retrospectively relate back to 29 August 1989.

However, applying Anuroop Singhai, the Court held that once the petitioner passed the examination on 21 July 1992, he became entitled to the increment from that date.

The respondents’ decision to grant the increment only from 20 January 1993 improperly deferred the benefit by approximately one year.

The order dated 12 January 1993 was quashed.

The respondents were directed to grant the annual increment with effect from 21 July 1992, revise the petitioner’s pay, and pay consequential arrears with interest at 6% per annum from the date of entitlement until actual payment.

The exercise was to be completed within three months of receiving the certified copy of the order; failing that, the outstanding amount would carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of default until payment.