ORDER
A.K. Shrivastava, J.
1. By this petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:
i) to set aside Annexures-D and E by which reduction is made in the name of correction of the petitioner’s pay fixation.
ii) By upholding the fixation of pay at the stage of 1820 in the basic pay being maintained.
iii) and its correction to the stage of Rs. 1760 by order dated 12.12.94 including the order of recovery be set aside.
2. By inviting my attention to Annexure-C dated 1.6.94 which is pay fixation of the petitioner it has been submitted by the learned Counsel that the petitioner was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 1820/- as he was promoted to the post of Junior Foreman. Thereafter, vide order dated 12.12.94 he has been fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 1760/- (Annexure-D). The contention of learned Counsel is that the respondents have adopted the fundamental rules of the State Government prevailing to the employees of the State of M.P. and if that is the position, in terms of FR 22-D the petitioner is required to be fixed in higher pay scale of promoted post. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Mishra v. State of M.P. and Ors. 1980 (1) SLR 828.
3. Considered the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. There is merit in the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner. Undoubtedly the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Junior Foreman vide order Annexure-B dated 26.5.1993. Thereafter vide Annexure-C the petitioner was fixed in the basic pay of Rs. 1690/- and one increment of Rs. 50/- of the lower post and one increment of prompted post has been calculated and accordingly the petitioner was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 1820/-. Vide impugned order Annexure-D dated 12.12.94 in place of Rs. 1820/- the petitioner has been fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 1760/-. While passing the above-said order one increment of pay scale of higher post on which he was promoted has not been taken into consideration and the petitioner has not been benefited. The case of the petitioner is akin to that of Ramesh Kumar Mishra (supra) wherein the Division Bench has held that in terms of FR 22-D an employee is entitled for advantage of one increment of higher pay scale in case he is promoted.
5. In this view of the matter, Annexure-D dated 12.12.1994 is hereby quashed and Annexure-C dated 1.6.1994 fixing the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 1820/- is hereby restored. If any amount has been recovered from the petitioner, the same may be refunded to him on or before 31.5.2006.
6. The petition is allowed with no order as to costs.
