Assess eligibility for increment from date of acquiring qualification, not application: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that eligibility for additional increments under an incentive scheme is required to be determined from the date an employee acquires higher qualification and not from the date he submits the application for the benefit.

Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj also made it clear that disciplinary or vigilance proceedings initiated after the date of acquiring the qualification could not disentitle the employee from receiving the benefit, even if the application was submitted later.

The ruling came on a petition filed against the Food Corporation of India and other respondents by now-retired manager (quality control) for quashing an order issued in August 2019 rejecting his claim for additional increments on acquiring higher qualification.

The respondents’ stand in the matter was that an employee involved in a vigilance case or under suspension would not be entitled to additional increment until exonerated. Justice Bhardwaj ruled a narrow construction that pegged eligibility to the date of application defeated the scheme’s purpose to incentivise professional upskilling.

Elaborating, Justice Bhardwaj asserted the respondents’ submission that the petitioner was ineligible because a vigilance inquiry was pending on the date of application submission arose from a narrow and isolated reading of a clause to hold “as if the benefit accrues only from the date of application”.

The Bench ruled the scheme’s harmonious and purposive construction made it clear that eligibility was required to be assessed from the date the employee became entitled to the benefit, which was the date of acquiring higher qualification.

“The scheme’s fundamental object is to incentivise employees to acquire higher qualifications. Therefore, a mere delay in submission of the application by the employee ought not to result in forfeiture of the benefit. Such an interpretation would not align with the scheme’s intent or ensure fairness in its implementation,” Justice Bhardwaj asserted.

The court held that benefit once accrued could not be withdrawn merely because departmental action was initiated subsequently as a mere delay in submitting the application could not prejudice the employee’s claim.

“Since the petitioner has established that he acquired the higher qualification, which was of two years’ duration, and that the same was obtained after approval from the competent authority of the corporation, he is therefore held entitled to the said benefit,” Justice Bhardwaj ruled.

Referring to the petitioner’s claim for stagnation increment, Justice Bhardwaj asserted the corporation’s stand that disciplinary proceedings barred such benefit was unsustainable as such disqualification was not prescribed in a circular governing stagnation increments.

Allowing the petitioner’s claim for additional increments, Justice Bhardwaj remanded the issue of stagnation increment to the competent authority for a fresh decision in accordance with the relevant circulars governing such benefit.

Haryana Tribune