HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR
Writ Petition No : 2842 of 2003
Vijay Kumar Jain
- V/s -
State of MP and Another
Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon,
Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha,
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Yadav.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Mukhtar Ahmed for the petitioner.
Shri Naman Nagrath, Additional Advocate General,
for the State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.
ORDER
27/08/2010
Petitioner was granted one advance increment in the month
of January 1987 in view of certain provisions contained in a Circular
dated 29.1.1979. The advance increment was granted to the petitioner on
account of the family planning operation undergone by the petitioner.
However, when the benefit of increment granted was withdrawn and his
pay was not properly fixed, while revision of pay to the next higher pay
scale was undertaken with effect from 1.4.1997, petitioner filed this writ
petition. While hearing the matter on 15.12.2003, a learned Single Bench
of this Court found that conflicting decisions have been rendered by two
Division Benches. In W.P.No.2036/2002, State of MP Vs. D.D.
Dekhane and another, decided on 23.10.2002, it has been held by a
Division Bench that once advance increment is granted in a particular
pay scale, the benefit shall continue whenever there is further revision of
pay scale. A contrary view was taken by another Division Bench at
2
Indore, in Dr. Smt. Vijaya Kothalkar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
2002 MPLSR 244.
2- Considering the aforesaid conflicting decisions the matter
was referred to Hon’ble the Chief Justice vide order-dated 15.12.2003
and this Bench has been constituted for resolving the aforesaid conflict.
However, during the pendency of the present petition, it is seen that a
Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior had also referred the same
question for consideration and a Full Bench of this Court, in the case of
State of MP and others Vs. R.K. Chaturvedi and another, 2006(2)
MPLJ 374, has answered the question in the following manner:
“12. In the result, our answer to the question referred to us
by the Division Bench is that an employee whose pay is
revised w.e.f 1.1.1986 in accordance with sub-rule (1) of
Rule 7 of the MP Revision of Pay Rules, 1990
automatically gets the benefit of the advance increments
given to him for Family Planning Operations under the
circular dated 29.1.1979 and once his revised scale of pay is
fixed in accordance with the said provisions of sub-rule (1)
of Rule 7 of the MP Revision of Pay Rules, 1990, he cannot
claim any further benefit of advance increments in the event
of his promotion or in the event of payment of higher pay-
scale.
13. For the purposes of finding out as to whether the pay
of respondent No.1 has been fixed in the revised scale of
pay effective from 1.1.1986 in accordance with the
provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the MP Revision of
Pay Rules, 1990, by our order dated 3.3.2006 we had called
upon the petitioners to file an affidavit along with the
relevant documents on how exactly the pay of the
respondent No.1 was fixed in the revised pay-scale of
Rs.2000-2900 and pursuant to the said order passed on
3.3.2006, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
petitioners on 20.3.2006, but we have not been able to hear
3the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
counsel for respondent No.1 on the said affidavit. This Writ
Petition will now be placed before the Division Bench to
hear the learned counsel for the parties on the said affidavit
filed on behalf of the petitioners and on the reply of
respondent No.1, if any, filed to the said affidavit and
decide the writ petition in accordance with the opinion
expressed by us in this order.”
3- Keeping in view the decision rendered by the Full Bench in
the case of R.K. Chaturvedi (supra), it is not necessary now to answer
the question referred to this Bench as the same stands answered on
21.4.2006, by the Full Bench in the case of R.K. Chaturvedi (supra).
4- In view of the above, the writ court is now required to
decide the writ petition on merits in accordance to the law laid down in
the case of R.K. Chaturvedi (supra).
5- Accordingly, the matter be now placed before the learned
Single Bench to decide the writ petition on merits.
6- The reference made to this Bench stands disposed of in the
manner as indicated hereinabove.
(RAJENDRA MENON) (R.S. JHA) (SANJAY YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
Aks/-