Compassionate appointees are entitled to annual increments from the date of qualifying the typing examination.

The petitioner, Smt. Sharda Verma, was appointed to her post (likely on compassionate grounds, given the cited precedents) and was required to pass a Hindi typing examination.

Following her appointment, she sought the benefit of annual increments from her initial date of appointment and challenged a recovery order dated 28.11.2015.

The petitioner relied on coordinate and Division Bench rulings establishing that employees in similar circumstances are entitled to increments from the date they qualify for the mandatory typing examination.

The State could not distinguish the present case from the cited precedents.

1. Whether the recovery order dated 28.11.2015 issued against the petitioner is legally sustainable.

2. Whether an employee is entitled to receive annual increments from the date of appointment or from the date of qualifying the mandatory Hindi typing examination.

The court applied the rule established by the Full Bench in Manoj Kumar Purohit and Others v. State of M.P. and others (2016 (1) MPLJ 449), which held that where Recruitment Rules or appointment letters require passing a Hindi Typing Test, an employee is entitled to increments only upon passing such a test, and the increment cannot be deferred beyond the date of qualification.

The court also applied the principle from Sunil Rathore v. State of M.P. (WP No. 14745/2021), distinguishing between general GAD circulars for direct recruitment and the specific terms governing compassionate appointments.

The court observed that the petitioner’s case was squarely covered by existing judicial precedents. By referencing Sunil Rathore (supra), the court noted that terms of appointment (specifically relating to typing tests and computer training) govern the entitlement to increments.

Following the Division Bench ruling in Anuroop Singhai & Others v. State of M.P. (WA No. 37/2018), the court reasoned that while the petitioner cannot claim increments from the date of initial appointment if the test was not yet passed, the State cannot deny the increment once the qualification is obtained.

Since the petitioner qualified the typing examination on 16.01.2011, the legal entitlement to the annual increment was triggered on that specific date, rendering any recovery based on a different calculation date unlawful.

The court held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of annual increments effective from the date she qualified the typing examination, i.e., 16.01.2011.

The respondents were directed to pay all consequential benefits within three months, failing which an interest rate of 6% per annum would apply from the date of entitlement until actual payment.