AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nidhi Gupta, J.
Present Civil Writ PeƟƟon under ArƟcles 226/227 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India has been filed by the peƟƟoner for issuance of a writ in the nature of cerƟorari seƫng aside Annexure P-6 dated 08.10.2020 and Annexure P-10 dated 19.05.2021 with further direcƟons to the respondents to grant conveyance allowance to the peƟƟoner meant for handicapped government employees from the date of joining and promote him to the post of Sub Divisional Clerk by exempƟng from passing the SETC test by considering Trade Proficiency CerƟficate (Annexure P-7) from the date when SETC qualified clerks were promoted with all consequenƟal benefits including seniority.
It is inter alia submiƩed by ld. counsel for the peƟƟoner the is for about 16 years. During service, the peƟƟoner had got disabled and was handicapped, as a result of which he was discharged on 31.10.2001.
As the peƟƟoner was not being paid disability pension, he had filed O.A. No. 1690 of 2013 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, in which direcƟons were issued to assess the disability of the peƟƟoner and grant him pension. ThereaŌer, vide order dated 01.09.2017 (Annexure P-1), the Office of Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Allahabad, issued Pension Payment Order granƟng disability pension to the peƟƟoner on account of 50% disability.
ThereaŌer, the peƟƟoner joined the respondent-Department as Clerk on 19.03.2018. As the peƟƟoner is handicapped, he had represented for grant of conveyance allowance meant for handicapped employees of the Haryana Government. The applicaƟon of the peƟƟoner was forwarded by respondent No. 3-Superintending Engineer, Loharu Water Services Circle, Bhiwani to respondent No. 2-Engineer-in-Chief, IrrigaƟon Department, Haryana vide leƩer dated 15.05.2019 (Annexure P-3).
Ld. Counsel submits that vide leƩer dated 01.07.2019 (Annexure P-4), respondent No. 2-Engineer-in-Chief had asked respondent No. 3-Superintending Engineer to submit the Disability CerƟficate of the peƟƟoner. WhereaŌer, Respondent No. 4-ExecuƟve Engineer, Loharu Water Services Division, IrrigaƟon Department, Bhiwani, submiƩed the Disability CerƟficate to respondent No. 3 vide leƩer dated 03.07.2020 (Annexure P-5).
It is submiƩed that vide leƩer dated 08.10.20 (Annexure P-6) the respondent No.2-Engineer-in-Chief returned the case to respondent No. 3-Superintending Engineer saying that it has not been dealt with and examined under Rule 22 of Haryana Civil Services Rules (Allowances to Govt. Employees) Rules 2016 (hereinaŌer ‘Rules 2016’) and the case has been hurriedly submiƩed which is not desirable.
Ld. Counsel contends that the Rules 2016 contain nothing adverse to the interest of the peƟƟoner. Ld. Counsel refers to Rule 22 of Rules 2016 which reads as under: -
“Conveyance allowance to blind and orthopedically handicapped Government employees: -
(i)A Government employee working on regular basis, who is declared (1) blind or having vision less than 3/60 of field vision less than 10 in both eyes by the Head of Ophthalmological Department of a Government Civil Hospital; or
(ii)orthopaedically handicapped with a minimum of 40% permanent parƟal disability of either upper or lower limbs by the Head of Orthopaedics Department of a Government Civil Hospital; or
(iii)orthopaedically handicapped with overall minimum 50% permanent parƟal disability of both upper and lower limbs together by the Head of Orthopaedics Department of a Government Civil Hospital; or
(iv)suffering from the spinal deformity causing permanent parƟal disability of above 40% by the Head of Orthopaedics Department of a Government Civil Hospital; shall, subject to provisions in these rules, be enƟtled to a conveyance allowance at the rate of 10 per cent of basic pay subject to minimum Rs. 1,000/- and maximum Rs. 2,000/- per month or as prescribed from Ɵme to Ɵme. The dearness allowance at the prevailing rate shall also be admissible on conveyance allowance.
(2)No conveyance allowance shall be admissible to-
(i)one eyed (parƟally blind) Government employee; or
(ii)those who are covered under these rules but have been provided with the facility of vehicle at Government expenses for journey between office and residence.
Note. For the purpose of assessing of disability, the standards as contained in the Manual for Orthopaedic Surgeon in EvaluaƟng Permanent Physical Impairment brought out by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeon U.S.A., and published on their behalf by ArƟficial Limbs Manufacturing CorporaƟon of India, G.T. Road, Kanpur, shall apply.
It is submiƩed that, therefore, a perusal of the above Rule 22 clearly shows that there is nothing adverse to the peƟƟoner in these rules debarring the peƟƟoner from conveyance allowance meant for government employees. The office of respondent no. 2-Engineer-in-Chief is returning the case of the peƟƟoner by puƫng the objecƟons which have no force and peƟƟoner is being deprived of his legal right of geƫng the conveyance allowance.
Ld. counsel for the peƟƟoner further submits that for promoƟon from the post of Clerk to the post of Sub Divisional Clerk, there is requirement to pass the State Eligibility Test in Computer AppreciaƟon and ApplicaƟons (SETC) ExaminaƟon. Ld. counsel contends that as the peƟƟoner has passed the Trade Proficiency CerƟficate (Annexure P-7) from the CORPS of Signals, which includes Civil Trade Typist and CompuƟng Machine Operator, the peƟƟoner is liable to be granted exempƟon from passing SETC; and thereby to be promoted as Sub Divisional Clerk. However, although respondent No. 4-ExecuƟve Engineer had forwarded the case of the peƟƟoner for exempƟon and promoƟon vide leƩer dated 25.09.2020 (Annexure P-8), the same has been rejected by respondent No. 2-Engineer-in-Chief vide leƩer dated 19.05.2021 (Annexure P-10).
Ld. counsel contends that in passing the said order of rejecƟon (Annexure P-10), respondents have failed to appreciate that the peƟƟoner is not seeking exempƟon on the basis of being an ex-serviceman but is seeking exempƟon on the basis of his Trade Proficiency CerƟficate awarded by the CORPS of Signals in which he has been declared qualified for the post of typist and CompuƟng Machine Operator.
Ld. Counsel further submiƩed that the InstrucƟons dated 02.11.2020 (Annexure P-11) are not applicable to the peƟƟoner. It is contended that the peƟƟoner is covered under the InstrucƟons dated 02.09.2020 (Annexure P-12), which clarifies that Clerks who have completed a three-month computer course from HKCL/NIELIT are enƟtled to exempƟon.
It is accordingly prayed that the present writ peƟƟon be allowed and order dated 08.10.2020 (Annexure P-6) and order dated 19.05.2021 (Annexure P-10) be set aside with further direcƟons to the respondents to grant conveyance allowance to the peƟƟoner meant for handicapped government employees from the date of joining and promote him to the post of Sub Divisional Clerk by exempƟng from passing the SETC test by considering Trade Proficiency CerƟficate (Annexure P-7) from the date when SETC qualified Clerks were promoted with all consequenƟal benefits including seniority.
Per contra, ld. State counsel has opposed the submissions of the peƟƟoner and pointed out that vide leƩer dated 08.10.2020 (Annexure P-6), the case of the peƟƟoner for conveyance allowance was only directed to be examined under Rule 22 of the Haryana Civil Services (Allowances) Rule, 2016. It is submiƩed that under the said Rules, the peƟƟoner is required to submit a Disability CerƟficate. The respondents have Ɵme and again advised the peƟƟoner to obtain the Disability CerƟficate to grant him exempƟon from SETC as also to grant him conveyance allowance. However, peƟƟoner has failed to do so. Accordingly, dismissal of the writ peƟƟon is prayed for.
No other argument is made on behalf of learned counsel for the parƟes. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file and record in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the peƟƟoner.
In order to qualify for promoƟon from the post of Clerk to Sub Divisional Clerk, passing of SETC is mandatory. SETC has two parts: i) Computer Knowledge Test; and ii) Typing Proficiency Test. As per the relevant rules, the candidate is required to pass the said test within a probaƟon period of two years, extendable by one year in case of direct recruits. In case the test is not passed, the employee shall not be enƟtled to earn any increment Ɵll he qualifies the test, failing which the services of such employee are liable to be dispensed with.
In Clause 6 of Rule 9A-(ii) of Haryana IrrigaƟon Department, Circle Clerical (Group-C) Service Rules, 1982, it is provided that the following employees are exempt from taking Part-I of the SETC:-
“(i)M. Tech/B.Tech (Computers), M.C.A., B.C.A. or Diploma in Computers from the recognized insƟtuƟons e.g. Polytechnics;
(ii)Basic Computer Literacy CerƟficate from any recognized centre established under the NaƟonal InsƟtute of Electronics and InformaƟon Technology (NIELIT) (erstwhile) DOEACC Society];
(iii)Haryana State CerƟficate in InformaƟon Technology [HS-CIT] from the Authorized Learning Centres (ALCs) of the HKCL;
(iv)Candidates/employees who have already passed the SETC and same are valid at the Ɵme of joining the service. The State Eligibility Test in Computer AppreciaƟon and ApplicaƟons (SETC) passed by any candidate earlier shall be considered valid or a period of five years from the date of issue of such cerƟficate by HARTRON or any other agency authorized by the Government; and
(v)Physically disabled candidates i.e. amputaƟon of hand (LeŌ and Right) AmputaƟon of upper limbs, Paralysis of Radial Nerve (Radial Nerve Palsy) either upper limbs. DeclinaƟon degeneraƟve disorder effecƟng the nervous system which may cause paralysis and atrophy of the hand and its muscles and Visually handicapped.”
However, even these employees, with the excepƟon of those
menƟoned under sub-para (v) above, shall be required to clear the Part-II i.e. 'Typing Test' being part of the SETC.
The peƟƟoner has prayed for exempƟon from both parts of SETC on the ground of Trade Proficiency CerƟficate (Annexure P-7) issued by the CORPS of Signals. However, the same does not fall under the above-said exempƟon. As such, peƟƟoner cannot be granted the same.
Even as per the InstrucƟons dated 02.11.2020 (Annexure P-11) relied upon by the peƟƟoner, exempƟon from SETC has not been granted to employees other than physically disabled as menƟoned in sub-para (v) above, or those who have a Diploma/Degree in computer. Accordingly, although the peƟƟoner has been assessed to be 50% disabled by the Military, exempƟon from SETC is available only to certain categories of disabled menƟoned in sub-para (v) above, in which the case of the peƟƟoner is not established by the competent authority prescribed in this regard.
It is clarified that the peƟƟoner has also sought exempƟon from SETC and sancƟoning of conveyance allowance on the basis of the Disability CerƟficate issued by the Military. However, under Rule 22 of Rules, 2016, the case of the peƟƟoner is required to be referred to the concerned specialist of a Government Civil Hospital for obtaining their recommendaƟon for grant of conveyance allowance. As such, vide leƩer dated 09.10.2023 (Annexure R-4), the peƟƟoner was advised to appear before the CMO, Bhiwani and obtain the Disability CerƟficate, but he failed to do so. Vide another leƩer dated 06.11.2023, the peƟƟoner was again directed to appear before the concerned department of the Civil Hospital and obtain the Disability CerƟficate with UDID. The peƟƟoner again failed to do so. Yet again, vide leƩer dated 21.11.2023 (Annexure R-5), the peƟƟoner was granted a last opportunity, but the peƟƟoner did not appear before the competent authority, i.e., the CMO of the concerned Civil Hospital. As such, the case of the peƟƟoner could not be finalized.
From the above facts, it is clear that no fault can be aƩributed to the respondent-Department. PeƟƟoner has not filed any replicaƟon, controverƟng or dispuƟng the above said factual posiƟon.
In this situaƟon, reference is made to judgment of this Court in Mohan Ram v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2074493. The relevant paras are as follows:-
“12.Furthermore, it is a maƩer of consideraƟon whether claim of the peƟƟoners seeking exempƟon from passing the type test, based on parity with others, can be allowed. In the opinion of this Court, this argument again cannot sustain, considering the fact that peƟƟoners here have been knocking doors of this Court by filing various writ peƟƟons whereby they had iniƟally sought exempƟon from passing the type test and necessary relief had not been allowed to them. In LPA No.1508 of 2013, though a direcƟon was issued to the respondents to consider the case of the peƟƟoners for granƟng exempƟon from passing the type test sympatheƟcally, these maƩers were considered and rejected by passing the speaking order. In the opinion of the Court, reading of the orders passed by the Division Bench in earlier bunch of writ peƟƟons, CWP No.18143 of 2018 being the lead case, would not reflect that there was any intenƟon of granƟng exempƟon from passing the type test to the peƟƟoners. It was only the SETC test which was made mandatory to be passed by the persons, who were appointed/promoted on the post of Clerk aŌer 07.11.2013 and to the persons, who had been promoted to the post of Clerk but did not pass the type test, an opƟon was given either to pass the type test or the SETC and 10 chances were decided to be given to do the same. The condiƟon of type test imposed is neither arbitrary, nor unreasonable, nor unconsƟtuƟonal and is largely in accordance with the modern Ɵmes where the office environment is rapidly changing to meet future challenges at the workplace.
13.The counsel for the peƟƟoner has vehemently argued that persons have been exempted from passing the type test as in the case of Hari Om and therefore on the basis of parity, the essenƟal qualificaƟon of passing the type test for the post of Clerk be exempted and increments be released. As per the seƩled proposiƟon of law, ArƟcle 14 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India embodies concept of posiƟve equality alone and not negaƟve equality. Even if the Rules were bent to accommodate a few, this court can not issue any such mandamus to the respondents to exempt the peƟƟoners from passing the type test as provided under the rules and under the appointment leƩer, otherwise the Court itself will be perpetuaƟng an illegality. In the case of State of West Bengal v. Debasish Mukherjee, (2011) 14 SCC 187 while dealing with the concept of equality it is observed in paragraph 26 as under:
"26.It is now well seƩled that guarantee of equality before law is a posiƟve concept and cannot be enforced in a negaƟve manner. If an illegality or an irregularity has been commiƩed in favour of any individual or group of individuals, others cannot invoke the jurisdicƟon of Courts and Tribunals to require the state to commit the same irregularity or illegality in their favour on the reasoning that they have been denied the benefits which have been illegally or arbitrarily extended to others."
The above view has been followed in a more recent judgment of this Court in CWP-5712-2021 Ɵtled as Jagdish Chander and others vs. State of Haryana and another decided on 23.10.2024.
Reference may also be made to the judgment passed by this Court in CWP-4353-2023 Ɵtled as Rajinder Parsad vs. State of Haryana and others dated 13.07.2026. The relevant observaƟons read as under:-
“13.Further, even as per following Rule 8(b) of Haryana Civil Services (ACP Rules), 2016, the peƟƟoner is not enƟtled for ACP without qualifying the type test:-
“8.Other general condiƟons of eligibiliƟes of ACP Level. The following general condiƟons shall also be fulfilled by a Government employee for availing benefit of ACP Level :-
a)xxxxxxxxx
(b)if such promoƟon involved passing of any departmental or other test, acquisiƟon of higher educaƟonal qualificaƟon, etc., such condiƟon shall also be fulfilled by the Government employee.”
14.Before parƟng, it may also be pointed out that the peƟƟoner was condiƟonally promoted vide order dated 14.02.2012. Three years thereinaŌer, peƟƟoner made the representaƟon dated 27.05.2015 (Annexure P-1) seeking exempƟon from the condiƟon of passing typing test only on the ground that he was aged, being 48 years; and the present Writ PeƟƟon has been filed eight years thereinaŌer on 23.02.2023. Thus, claim of the peƟƟoner is highly belated. Instead of fulfilling the said condiƟon, it is only aŌer more than three years of his promoƟon, peƟƟoner had submiƩed representaƟon dated 27.05.2015 (Annexure P-1) seeking relaxaƟon from passing of typing test. ConsequenƟally, the same came to be rightly rejected vide impugned order 11.08.2015 (Annexure P-2).
15.Moreover, pursuant to promoƟon order dated 14.02.2012, peƟƟoner had duly joined on 15.02.2012, thereby implying that peƟƟoner had acceded to the said condiƟon of passing typing test. Resultantly, peƟƟoner is now estopped from laying challenge to the said condiƟon.”
In this regard, reference may also be made to an order dated 04.09.2018 of this Court in CWP-18084-2016 Ɵtled as Uma Kant & others vs. State of Haryana and others, wherein it has been observed as follows:-
“This Court is of the firm opinion that promoƟon to the post of Clerk necessarily involves skill required for the post of the Clerk at least knowing about the typing and the computer applicaƟon in order to perform the duƟes of Clerk in the Government offices. Nay it would be a fundamental requirement for a Clerk to have skilled knowledge about the computer applicaƟon and the typing (English/Hindi) for discharging the funcƟons as such. There can not be a Clerk without the knowledge of computer applicaƟon and typing etc. There is no quesƟon of prospecƟve applicaƟon of noƟficaƟon dated 09.11.2013. It must apply to all who are working as Clerks and taking salary of Clerk. However, the note shown to us by the learned State counsel that type test would be necessarily prospecƟve as per noƟficaƟon dated 09.11.2013 is absurd. By saying so, the result would be that there would be one set of Clerks in the exempted category having no knowledge of typing (English/Hindi) or computer applicaƟon and or SETC qualificaƟon. Another set would be of Clerks having SETC qualificaƟon working in the same Government office. The Clerks in the exempted category would chuckle at the others having SETC. The present peƟƟoners have claimed that there is discriminaƟon and they should also be granted exempƟon. Thus if all the Clerks are granted exempƟon from passing SETC, the working in the offices of the Government is bound to be severely affected apart from increase in favouriƟsm and nepoƟsm.
The State of Haryana is a progressive State and the step in quesƟon to conƟnue to grant exempƟons to the favourites on such excuses including the alleged prospecƟve applicaƟon, is bound to result in a retrograde step. We cannot countenance such a thought and move on the part of the high ranking officer like AddiƟonal Chief Secretary to reduce the standard in such a manner that too when huge salary with 7th recommendaƟon is being paid without accountability. We, therefore, find that passing of SETC type test (English/Hindi) ought to be made compulsory for one and all who want to work as a Clerk on promoƟon or by direct recruitment. It is a different maƩer that Government may give chances and chances to them to appear in the said test.
We hope, trust and request the Chief Secretary of the State of Haryana to look into the maƩer personally and take decision in the interest of public and the State rather than granƟng exempƟons which obviously has given rise to the present liƟgaƟon.”
Ld. counsel for the peƟƟoner is unable to controvert or dispute the above said factual and legal posiƟon. Accordingly, the present Writ PeƟƟon stands dismissed.
Pending applicaƟon(s), if any, also stands disposed of.