Hindi typing test cannot be treated as an increment condition where rules grant preference and appointment order is silent.

The appellant was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on 31 December 1987 in the Water Resources Department.

His first annual increment was granted only from 7 January 1991. After retiring on 31 December 2021, he submitted a representation on 18 April 2024 seeking increments for 1989 and 1990, contending that neither the applicable recruitment rules nor his appointment order required him to pass a Hindi typing test as a condition for grant of increments.

The learned Single Judge dismissed his writ petition, holding that the claim was barred by delay and laches and that, in view of his passing the Hindi typing examination on 26 March 1990, the increment granted from 1991 was proper, relying on Manoj Kumar Purohit v. State of M.P.

The appellant challenged that decision in the intra-court appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

1. Whether the appellant’s claim for annual increments for 1989 and 1990 could be rejected solely on the ground of delay and laches when denial of an increment constitutes a recurring cause of action.

2. Whether passing the Hindi typing examination was an essential condition for entitlement to increments where the applicable recruitment rules prescribed only a preference for candidates possessing a typing certificate and the appointment order contained no such condition.

3. Whether the Full Bench decision in Manoj Kumar Purohit v. State of M.P. , 2016 (1) MPLJ 449, governed the appellant’s case.

The Court applied Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, governing the intra-court appeal.

It considered the Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Department (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1969, under which a Lower Division Clerk was required to be a matriculate or equivalent, with preference for candidates possessing a typewriting certificate, but without making the Hindi typing test a mandatory qualification.

Relying on the Full Bench decision in Manoj Kumar Purohit , the Court stated that passing the Hindi typing examination may be treated as an essential condition where that requirement is prescribed in the recruitment rules, governing policy, or appointment order; however, the Full Bench expressly left open cases where neither the recruitment rules nor the appointment order imposed such a condition.

The Court also recognised that non-grant of an annual increment may give rise to a recurring cause of action.

The Court held that the appellant’s case fell outside the situations decided in Manoj Kumar Purohit .

The applicable 1969 Recruitment Rules merely gave preference to candidates who had passed the Hindi typing test and did not prescribe it as a mandatory qualification for an LDC in the Water Resources Department.

The appellant’s appointment order likewise contained no stipulation making the typing examination a condition for entitlement to increments.

Since the Full Bench had expressly declined to decide cases in which neither the recruitment rules nor the appointment order prescribed such a requirement, its decision could not justify denial of the appellant’s increments.

Although the claim was made after approximately 34 years, the Court considered the merits because denial of an increment constituted a recurring cause of action and the Single Judge had also dismissed the petition on merits.

The order dated 13 November 2024 dismissing the writ petition was set aside.

The respondents were directed to consider and decide the appellant’s pending representation seeking increments for 1989 and 1990 by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules and executive instructions, if any, within 90 days from receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.

The Court therefore did not directly grant the increments but directed their reconsideration in accordance with law.