Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Payment Of Arrears To Retired District Court Pensioners Who Underwent Computer Training; Orders Revision Of PPOs
The High Court directed that judicial employees who had acquired entitlement to an advance increment on completion of computer training during service and have since retired shall be paid arrears of salary and pension, and that their Pension Payment Orders be revised accordingly.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court directed payment of arrears of salary and pension along with revision of Pension Payment Orders in favour of judicial employees who became entitled to the benefit of one advance increment on completion of computer training during the applicable period.
The Court was hearing a batch of writ petitions raising a common grievance relating to the denial of financial benefits flowing from the grant of an advance increment to Class-III judicial employees who had undergone computer training during service.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal examined whether the State was justified in denying or withdrawing the benefit of an advance increment and its consequential effects on pay and pension, and held: “the Administrative Committee of the District Court had already recommended the grant of an advance increment in light of the circular dated 06.02.2006 because the petitioner had been given computer training; therefore, a right had already been created in favour of the petitioner”.
The Bench further elaborated that “since the State Government withdrew the circular dated 06.02.2006 vide circular dated 26.09.2014, those who had undergone training from 06.02.2006 till 26.09.2014, as certified by the Principal and District Judge, are entitled to the benefit of the advance increment.”
Background
The petitioners were employees working in different District Courts in the State of Madhya Pradesh. During the process of computerisation of court work, they underwent computer training pursuant to directions issued by the High Court and in accordance with the policy then in force.
Under a circular dated 06.02.2006 issued by the State Government, employees who completed computer training were entitled to one advance increment. The said circular remained operative until it was withdrawn on 26.09.2014.
Though the benefit of an advance increment was initially extended to similarly situated employees, it was subsequently denied or withdrawn in the case of the petitioners on the ground that computer knowledge had later been made an essential qualification under amended recruitment rules.
Aggrieved by the denial of the benefit and its financial consequences, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking restoration of the advance increment and consequential service and pensionary benefits.
Court’s Observation
The High Court noted that the petitioners had undergone computer training during the period when the circular dated 06.02.2006 was in force, and that the benefit of one advance increment had accrued to them during service.
The Court held that the subsequent amendment of recruitment rules, making computer proficiency a mandatory qualification for recruits, could not be used to deny benefits to existing employees who had acquired computer skills under the earlier regime.
The Bench, however, clarified that “those who were appointed when no qualification for computer knowledge was prescribed were required to undergo training to encourage them to deal with computer work, and after successful completion of the training, they were granted the benefit of an advance increment”.
The Bench observed that once entitlement to the advance increment stood established, the petitioners were also entitled to all consequential benefits, including fixation of pay and computation of pension.
“The circular dated 06.02.2006 remained valid till 26.09.2014; therefore, during that period, those who underwent training are certainly entitled to the benefit of one advance increment”, the Bench concluded.
Conclusion
Allowing the writ petitions, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of one advance increment and its consequential financial effects.
Since most of the petitioners had already retired from service, the Court directed that they shall be paid arrears of salary as well as arrears of pension.
The Court further directed that the Pension Payment Orders (PPOs) of the retired petitioners shall be revised accordingly to reflect the corrected pay fixation. The writ petitions were disposed of with these directions.
Cause Title: Rakesh Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh And Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:312)
Appearances
Petitioners: Shailendra Verma; Harsh Gupta; Anuj Agrawal; Qasim Ali, Advocates
Respondents: Abhijeet Awasthi, Deputy Advocate General; Satyendra Kumar Patel; Piyush D. Dharmadhikari; Akash Choudhury; Amrit Kaur Ruprah, Advocates