Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that government employees who completed certified computer training under a valid administrative circular are entitled to an advance increment, even if the circular is later withdrawn. The Court underscored that “benefits once accrued under a valid policy cannot be retrospectively taken away,” reinforcing the protection of vested service rights.
Brief Facts:
The dispute arose from multiple writ petitions and contempt petitions filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, all involving identical factual and legal issues. The representative case of Rakesh Verma, appointed as a Class-III employee in the District Court of Jabalpur on 27 January 1986, highlighted the core conflict. When the state introduced computerization of court functions in 1990 through the National Informatics Centre (NIC), Verma and other employees successfully completed training programs certified by the Principal and District Judge. Pursuant to a 6 February 2006 circular issued by the General Administration Department (GAD), employees who underwent training were to receive one advance increment.
However, the circular was withdrawn on 26 September 2014, and subsequent amendments to Recruitment Rules from 12 June 2009 made computer qualifications mandatory only for new recruits. Despite having earned the increment under the 2006 circular, Verma initially received the benefit, which was later withdrawn on 13 March 2020 following a Finance Department opinion denying eligibility. Aggrieved, Verma and similarly placed employees approached the High Court seeking restoration of the advance increment along with arrears, pension revisions, and consequential benefits.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellants contended that their entitlement to the advance increment arose directly from the 6 February 2006 circular, which explicitly linked completion of computer training to a tangible benefit. Counsel argued that successful training and certification by the Principal and District Judge created a vested and enforceable right that could not be negated by a subsequent administrative decision or withdrawal of the circular. They emphasized that amendments to the Recruitment Rules effective 12 June 2009 applied only to future recruits and could not affect employees appointed prior to the change.
The appellants relied heavily on the 7 September 2016 coordinate bench ruling, which granted the same increment to similarly situated employees, asserting that denial in their case amounted to discriminatory and arbitrary treatment. They further argued that the Administrative Committee’s initial grant of the increment created legitimate expectations, and its subsequent withdrawal based on a Finance Department opinion dated 4 February 2020 was legally unsustainable.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The State contended that the 6 February 2006 circular had been officially withdrawn by the GAD on 26 September 2014, and no employee could claim benefits once the circular ceased to exist. They further relied on the Finance Department’s clarification of 4 February 2020, which declared employees ineligible for continuation of the benefit after the policy’s annulment. The respondents also argued that post-12 June 2009 amendments to Recruitment Rules made computer qualifications mandatory for new recruits, rendering the advance increment redundant.
Counsel emphasized that once the policy was rescinded, no enforceable right survived for existing employees, and the Administrative Committee had acted in error when initially granting the increment, later corrected based on Finance Department advice. The State also highlighted a distinction between older and newer appointees, asserting that extending benefits retroactively to pre-2009 employees would constitute an undue advantage over those already selected on merit and computer proficiency.
Observations of the Court:
The Court meticulously examined the interplay between administrative policy, accrued benefits, and service jurisprudence principles. The Court observed that the appellants had fully complied with the training requirements under the 2006 circular, which was valid and binding at the time. Crucially, the Court held, “The withdrawal of a circular or policy in the future cannot divest benefits already accrued in favor of employees who have earned the entitlement in good faith.”
Citing earlier rulings and service law doctrines on vested rights, the bench emphasized that administrative convenience or subsequent amendments cannot retroactively erode legally recognized benefits. The Court rejected the State’s argument that post-2009 Recruitment Rule changes or the Finance Department clarification could override rights earned under a pre-existing circular.
Furthermore, the Court underscored that once the Administrative Committee granted the increment, it created legitimate expectations, and withdrawing it “amounts to arbitrary and discriminatory treatment, contrary to principles of equity and natural justice.” In sum, the High Court reinforced the fundamental principle that accrued service benefits are protected against shifting administrative policies.
The decision of the Court:
All writ and contempt petitions were allowed. The Court directed the grant of one advance increment to all eligible employees trained between 6 February 2006 and 26 September 2014, along with payment of arrears of salary and pension where applicable, and revision of Pension Payment Orders (PPOs) for retired employees.
Case Title: Rakesh Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 10532 of 2020
Coram: Justice Vivek Rusia, Justice Pradeep Mittal
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Shailendra Verma
Advocate for Respondent: Advs. Piyush D. Dharmadhikari, Abhijeet Awasthi, Satendra Kumar Patel
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
