Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ., Parth Prateem Sahu, J.
Registrar General High Court of Chhattisgarh - Appellant
Versus
Fanendra Kumar Bisen S/o Late Soman Lal Bisen and ors. - Respondents
WA No. 479 of 2024
Decided On : 07-08-2024
(A) M.P. Fundamental Rules – Rule 9(23) – Family Planning Operations – Advance increments – The petitioner, initially appointed as Assistant Grade-III, was granted two advance increments for family planning but lost them upon promotion to Assistant Grade-II. The learned Single Judge directed the continuation of these increments, which was contested. (Paras 3, 12)
(B) Promotion and Pay Fixation – The court ruled that once an employee's pay is revised, they cannot claim further advance increments upon promotion. The learned Single Judge's order was set aside due to misinterpretation of the rules. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was granted advance increments for family planning but lost them upon promotion. He challenged the decision to stop these increments after a long delay.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the continuation of advance increments post-promotion. Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to continue receiving advance increments after promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that advance increments are included in the basic pay upon promotion, and further claims for these increments are not permissible.
Result: Writ appeal allowed; the impugned order set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, CJ.
1.Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/ respondent nos. 2 & 3.
2.This writ appeal is presented by the appellant assailing the order dated 15.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 3617 of 2019, whereby the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein.
3.Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Grade-III vide order dated 24.01.1992. The wife of the petitioner had undergone family planning operation (Tubectomy) on 29.07.1999. On account of the family planning operation the benefit of two advance increments has been granted to the petitioner vide order dated 23.08.1999. The petitioner got the above benefit till December, 2004. Subsequently vide order dated 19.01.2005, the petitioner promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000, but the benefit of advance increment was not extended to the petitioner. Even vide order dated 28.12.2005 while the pay scale of the petitioner has been fixed, but the above benefit of two advance increments on account of family planning operation has not been granted and as such petitioner not getting the benefit of advance increments. The petitioner made a representation on 18.09.2018 before the respondent No.3 therein for continuance of the above two advance increments, which has been disposed by the respondent No.3 therein vide order dated 30.01.2019 giving the reference of order dated 28.12.2018 passed by Law Department. Hence, the petitioner has filed a writ petition being WPS No. 3617 of 2019 challenging the order dated 30.01.2019, whereby the claim of the petitioner for continuance of two advance increments has been closed. The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 15.06.2024, directing the respondents to make fixation of petitioner’s pay by taking into consideration the advance increments earned earlier by him till 07.10.2015. It has been further directed to pay arrears, if any, payable to him consequent upon such fixation of pay and other consequential benefits.
4.Being aggrieved by the said impugned judgment dated 15.06.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant / respondent No.3 therein has filed the instant appeal.
5.Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that memo issued by the appellant High Court vide dated 30.08.2018, concerned department of respondent State Government, vide its letter/memo dated 28.12.2018 has communicated to the appellant High Court that as per the information/opinion given by the General Administration Department, GoCG, the benefit of advance increment which has been granted to the respondent No.1 as an incentive will be available only on the prevailing pay-scale till next re-fixation of pay-scale. Further, since there is no provision of continue the benefit of advance increment under the Rules in this regard, therefore, the proposal of the Administrative Department has been disapproved. He further argued that as per rules while granting advance increment on account of Family Planning Operation, the said increments were added to respondent no.1 basic pay and accordingly the other benefits were granted to him on the said basic pay. Further, while granting of promotion/appointment on higher pay, his increments earlier granted to him including advance increments were taken into consideration and accordingly his pay was fixed at the stage where the same reached in the stage of pay scale of promoted post. Since advance increments were already included in the basic pay of his earlier post/pay scale and while fixing his pay on promoted post
An employee cannot claim further advance increments after promotion, as these increments are included in the basic pay upon promotion.
Advance increments to stenographers for shorthand speed are 'pay for all purposes', including annual increments, till promotion/ACP/MACP; department's exclusion for increment calculation unjustified ....
An employee is entitled to an increment if their juniors receive a lower pay, provided no undue advantage in promotion or pay scale is claimed.
Judicial ruling affirms equal pay adjustment rights for senior employees despite increment anomalies resulting from different departmental exam timings.
An employee need not wait for twelve months from the fixation of his/her pay in the new scale for earning in the revised scale.
Point of Law : powers of Government of India, of Local Governments and of subordinate authorities to grant a premature increment to an officer are subject to limits up to which each such authority ca....
Recovery of authorized increments from pension is impermissible without due process; prior court rulings must be respected.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
