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