Civil Writ Petition No. 5960 of 1989 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 5960 of 1989
Date of decision: 29.10.2009
Dr. Narinder Kumar ...petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana ...respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana
for the State.
*****
RANJIT SINGH J.
The petitioner, who is MBBS had joined Haryana Civil
Medical Service Class II on adhoc basis w.e.f. 15.6.1984. The
services of the petitioner were regularised w.e.f. 31.10.1984.
Having done his MBBS in the 1980 from the Medical
College, Rohtak, the petitioner had completed one year house job at
the same college w.e.f. 1.1.1981 to 31.12.1981. Thereafter, he had
joined Master of Surgery in Opthamology, which is a Post Graduate
degree course in the Medical College, Rohtak on 24.3.1982. He
completed two years training on 23.3.1984. He appeared in the M.S.
examination held in April, 1984 but could not clear the same. In the
meantime, he joined the Haryana Civil Medical Services on
15.6.1984. The petitioner again appeared in the M.S. examination
held in December, 1984 and was declared successful.
In this background, the petitioner is relied upon
instructions issued on 20.5.1982, which provides that the doctors,
Civil Writ Petition No. 5960 of 1989 2
who had joined the services and have done Post Graduation and not
less than two years duration may be given two advance increments
at the time of their initial appointment. This benefit is to be given to
the doctors in view of Rule 4.10 of CSR Vol. I, Part I by the
appointing authority. On this basis, the petitioner in this regard
entered into correspondence with the Director Health Services.
Another letter was issued by the respondents on 9.2.1989 providing
that the doctors, who had joined service after 20.12.1989 and are
possessing higher qualification of Post Graduate degree of duration
of two years at the time of entry into HCMS Class II may be granted
two increments. Pleading that the petitioner had completed 2 years
training and had appeared in the examination but was not declared
successful and he was not treated as Post Graduate, the petitioner
represented for grant of advance increments. The case of the
petitioner for grant of advance increments was referred to the State
Government for decision. When no reply was received, the petitioner
filed a representation on 26.4.1988 in this regard. During this time,
another instructions were issued on 3.3.1988 stating that two
advance increments were granted to those doctors, who had passed
Post Graduate degree at the time of entry into HCMS Class II. In this
background, the petitioner prayed for grant of two advance
increments, which were being denied to him on the ground that he
did possess Post Graduate Degree at the time of entry into service.
Claiming that when the petitioner joined the service, he was entitled
to those advance increments and the denial being illegal, he filed this
writ petition.
Respondents of course would deny this and would rely on
Civil Writ Petition No. 5960 of 1989 3
the instructions to say that the benefit of two advance increments is
given to those doctors, who were possessing higher qualification at
the time of entry into HCMS Class II service. Since the petitioner has
passed the Post Graduate degree after having joined the service, he
cannot be said to be possessing higher qualification when he joined
the service on 31.10.1984. Hence, the benefit of these two advance
increments is denied to the petitioner.
There is not much dispute that the benefit of two advance
increments is to be given to those doctors, who are possessing Post
Graduate Degree at the time of their entry into service. Merely that
some instructions were operating when the petitioner entered into
service would not entitle the petitioner to claim this benefit. There is
no justification for giving two advance increments to those who are
not Post Graduate at the time of joining the service. The instructions
issued are not under challenge. There is a rationale behind issuing
such instructions. No one has otherwise appeared to argue the writ
petition, still I have considered the claim of the petitioner on merit and
find that the same is not made out. There is no merit in the writ
petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.
October 29, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE