SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(MP) 551

2006 (2) JLJ 143
(FULL BENCH)
A.K. Patnaik, C.J., S.S. Jha and Subhash Samvatsar, J.J.
State of M.P. and others v. R.K. Chaturvedi and another
Writ Petition No. 2047 of 2000: on reference by Division Bench.
against the order of M.P State Administrative Tribunal. Gwalior,
passed in O.A. No. 482 of 1999;
Decided on 21.4.2006

Advocates:
S.B. Mishra Additional Advocate General with Brajesh Sharma.
Government Advocate for petitioners; S.P. Jain for respondent No.1

Headnote:Fundamental Rules (M.P.) -- Rr. 27 and 9 (23) -- M.P Revision of Pay Rules. 1990 -- Rr. 7 (1) and 3 (d) -- premature increment granted to Government servant under R. 27 of Fundamental Rules is his personal pay under R. 9 (23) -- Rules of 1990 are deemed to be ill force w.e.f 1.1.1986 -- advance increments or ‘personal pay‘ -- are included in the pre-fixation emoluments -- Government servant gets the benefit of advance increment at the time of fixation of his pay.

       The respondent No.1 was initially appointed as Sub-Engineer in the Water Resources Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh w.e.f. 24.9.1980. His wife had two children and she went through a family planning operation on 9.6.1984. Under a circular dated 29.1.1979 of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, General Administrative Department, a Government servant who went through family planning operation was to be given two advance increments. Accordingly, by order dated 16.7.1984 of the Executive Engineer, Benganga Project of the Water Resources Department, respondent No. 1 was granted two additional increments w.e.f 9.6.1984. Thereafter, the pay-scales of Government servants were revised w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and the pay of the respondents was fixed in the revised scale of Rs. 2,000-2,900/-. The respondent No.1 entertained a grievance that while fixing his pay in the revised scale of Rs. 2,000-2,900/-, the petitioners have not given him the benefit of two additional increments. He therefore filed OA No. 482/1999 before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"), Gwalior Bench for appropriate relief. [Para 2

       The Tribunal directed the State to refix the pay of the respondents in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 2,000-2,900/- adding two additional increments on account of family planning operation and calculate the arrears and make the payment of the same. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for quashing the said order dated 31.8.1999 in OA No. 482/99 as corrected by the order dated 21.9.1999 in M.A. No. 399/99.

       Before the Division Bench which was hearing the writ petition, a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Vijaya Kothalkar v. State of M.P and others [2001 (3) MPLJ 469] was cited on behalf of the respondent No.1 in which it was held that at the time of fixing pay in the revised scale, due weight-age has to be given to the increments already acquired by incumbent and if that is not done, it would tantamount to denying the benefit which has been acquired by the incumbent to his prejudice. Before the Division Bench hearing the writ petition, another Division Bench judgment in State of M.P Y. D.D. Dekhne and others in WP No. 2036/02 was cited on behalf of the petitioners in which it was held that two advance increments were given as benefit qua particular pay-scale and it cannot be said that a person who has been given a benefit qua particular pay-scale would avail the said benefit whenever there would be revision of pay-scale. In view of these conflicting opinions of two Division Benches of this Court, the Division Bench has referred the following question of law to the Full Bench:

       "Whether in the event of promotion or payment of higher pay-scale, employee is entitled for benefit of advance increments paid in previous scale of pay or cadre?" [Paras 3 & 4

       Held: Rule 27 of the M.P. Fundamental Rules provides that an appointing authority may grant a premature increment to a Government servant on time scale of pay, subject to general or special order issued by the Government. It is under this Rule 27 of the M.P. Fundamental Rules that the Government of Madhya Pradesh issued the circular dated 29.1.1979 granting two advance increments to a Government servant on time scale of pay for family planning operations. Such advance increments granted under the said circular dated 29.1.1979 are additional pay granted to a Government servant and the consideration for granting such additional pay is personal to him, i.e., the family planning operation undergone by him or his wife. These advance increments therefore constitute "personal pay‘ as defined in rule 9 (23) of the M.P. Fundamental Rules. [Para 9

       It will be clear that pre-fixation emoluments include not only the basic pay in the existing scale but also 6% of basic pay in the existing scale subject to a minimum of Rs. 50/-, special pay and "personal pay". As we have held, the two advance increments granted under Rule 27 of the M.P. Fundamental Rules for a Government servant for family planning operation under the circular dated 29. 1.1979 constitute "personal pay" of the Government servant. Therefore the said two advance increments are included in the pre-fixation emoluments. Since under subd`rule (1) of Rule 7, the pay of a Government servant is fixed in the revised scale at the stage above the pre-fixation emoluments, the Government servant gets the benefit of the two advance increments at the time of fixation of his pay in the revised scale under sub rule (1) of Rule 7 of the M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1990. Hence, once the pay of Government servant in the revised scale of pay is fixed in accordance with subd`rule (1) of Rule 7 of the M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1990, he cannot have a grievance that the two advance increments given to him for family planning operation have not been included in his pay at the time of revision of his pay-scale w.e.f. 1.1.1986.2001 (3) MPLJ 469 overruled. WP No. 2036 of 2002 confirmed. [Paras 11 & 12

       ewy fu;e ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 24 rFkk 9 ¼23½ && e-iz- osru dk iqujh{k.k fu;e] 1990 && fu- 7 ¼1½ rFkk 3 ¼?k½ && ewy fu;e ds fu- 27 ds v/khu ljdkjh lsod dks iznku dh xbZ le;iwoZ osruo`f) fu;e 9¼23½ ds v/khu mldk oS;fDrd osru gS && lu~ 1990 ds fu;e- 1-1-1986 ls izo`Ùk le>s tkrs gS && vfxze osruo`f);k¡ ;k *oS;fDrd osru* && fu;ru&iwoZ miyfC/k;ksa esa lfEefyr gSa && ljdkjh lsod dks mlds osru ds fu;ru ds le; vfxze osruo`f) dk Qk;nk izkIr gksrk gSA

       izR;FkhZ Ø- 1 vkjaHk esa 24-9-1980 dks e/; izns‘k ljdkj ds ty lalk/ku foHkkx esa lc&bathfuj fu;qDr fd;k x;k FkkA mldh iRuh ds nks larkussa Fkha rFkk mlus 9-6-1984 dks dqVaqc fu;kstu ‘kY;fØ;k djokbZA e/; izns‘k ljdkj ds lk/kkj.k lkekU; iz‘kklu foHkkx ds ifji= fnukad 29-1-1979 ds v/khu dqVqac fu;kastu ‘kY;fØ;k djokus okys ljdkjh lsod ds nks vfxze osruo`f);ksa nh tkuk FkhaA rnuqlkj] ty lalk/ku foHkkx dh ck.kxaxk ifj;kstuk ds dk;Zikyd bathfu;j ds vkns‘k fnukad 16-7-1984 }kjk izR;FkhZ Ø- 1 dks 9-6-1984 ls nks vfrfjDr osruo`f);k¡ nh xbZA rRi‘pkr~ ljdkjh lsodksa ds osrueku iqujhf{kr fd, x, tks 1-1-1986 ls izHkkoh gq, rFkk izR;FkhZx.k dk osru #-2]000&2]9000 ds iqujhf{kr osrueku esa mldk osru fu;r djrs le; ;kphx.k us mls mu nh vfrfjDr osruo`f);kas dk Qk;nk ugha fn;k gSA vr% mlus leqfpr vuqrks"k ds fy, e-iz- jkT; iz‘kklfud vf/kdj.k] Xokfy;j U;k;ihB ¼la{ksi ds fy, **vf/kdj.k**½ ds le{k ewy vkosnu Ø- 482@1999 Qkby fd;kA ¿ iSjk 2À

       vf/kdj.k us jkT; dks izR;FkhZx.k dk osru] dqVqac fu;kstu ‘kY;fØ;k ds dkj.k nks vfrfjDr osruo`f);k¡ tksM+rs gq, #- 2]000&2]900 ds iqujhf{kr osrueku esa iqu% fu;r djus] cdk;k laxf.kr djus rFkk mldk lank; djus dk funs‘k fn;kA O;fFkr gksdj ;kphx.k us izdh.kZ vihy Ø- 482@99 esa ikfjr mDr vkns‘k fnukad 31-8-1999 vfHk[kafMr fd, tkus ds fy, lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 227 ds v/khu ;g ;kfpdk Qkby dh gSA

       fjV ;kfpdk dh lquokbZ djus okyh [akM U;k;ihB ds le{k izR;FkhZ Ø-1 dh vksj ls fot; dksBkydj fo- e-iz- jkT; rFkk vU; ¿2001 ¼3½ ,e ih ,y ts 469À esa lb U;k;ky; dh [akM U;k;ihB dk fu.kZ; izks)r fd;k x;k ftlesa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k Fkk fd iqujhf{kr osrueku esa osru fu;r djurs le; in/kkjh }kjk igys gh vftZr osruo`f);kas dks lE;d~ vf/keku fn;k tkuk gksrk gS rFkk ;fn ,slk ugha fd;k tkrk rc og in/kkjh dks izfrdwyr% izHkkfor djrs gq, mlds }kjk vftZr Qk;ns ls oafpr djuk gSA fjV ;kfpdk dks lquokbZ djus okyh [kaM U;k;ihB ds le{k ;kphx.k dhs vksj ls fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 2036@02 esa e-iz- jkT; fo- Mh-Mh ns[kus rFkk vU; esa ,d vU; [akM U;k;ihB dk fu.kZ; izks)r fd;k x;k ftlesa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k Fkk fd nks vfxze osruo`f);k¡ ,d fof‘k‘V osrueku esa Qk;nkLo:i nh xbZ Fkha rFkk og ugha dgk tk ldrk fd ftl O;fDr dks fdlh fof‘k‘V osrueku esa Qk;nk fn;k x;k gS mls mDr Qk;nk murh ckj fd;k tk,xk ftruh ckj osrueku esa iqujh{k.k fd;k tk,A bl U;k;ky; dh nks [kaM U;k;ihBksa dh bu ijLijfojks/kh jk;ksa dh n`f"V ls [kaM U;k;ihB us iw.kZ U;k;ihB dks fof/k dk fuEufyf[kr iz‘u funsZf‘kr fd;k gS %

       **D;k izkséfr ;k mPprj osrueku ds lank; dh n‘kk esa deZpkjh osru ds iwoZrjeku ;k dkMj esa lanÙk vfxze osruo`f);k¡ ds Qk;ns dk gdnkj gS \**

        ¿ iSjk 3 ,oa 4À

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % e-iz ewy fu;e ds fu;e 27 esa micaf/kr gS fd fu;kstd izkf/kdkjh ljdkjh lsod dks ljdkj }kjk tkjh fd, x, lk/kkj.k ;k fo‘ks"k vkns‘k ds v/;/khu] le; osrueku ij le;iwoZ osruo`f) iznku dj ldrk gSA e-iz- ewy fu;e ds bl fu;e 27 ds v/khu gh e/; izns‘k ljdkj us ljdkjh lsod dks dqVqac fu;sktu ‘kY;fØ;k ds fy, le; osrueku ij nks vfxze osruo`f);k¡ iznku djrs gq, ifji= 29-1-1999 tkjh fd;k FkkA mDr ifji= fnukad 29-1-1979 ds v/khu iznku dh xbZ ;g osruo`f);k¡ ljdkjh lsod dks iznku fd;k x;k vfrfjDr osru gSa rFkk ;g vfrfjDr osru mls iznku djus ds fy, fopkj.kh; ckr oS;fDrd gS] vFkkZr~ mlds ;k mldh iRuh }kjk djkbZ xbZ dqVqac fu;kstu ‘kY;fØ;kA vr% ;g vfxze osruo`f);k¡ e-iz- ewy fu;e ds fu;e 9 ¼23½ esa ;FkkifjHkkf"kr oS;fDrd osru gSA ¿ iSjk 9À

       Li"V gS fd fu;eru&iwoZ miyfC/k;ksa esa orZeku osrueku esa ewy osru gh ugha vfirq orZeku osrueku esa ewy osru dk tks U;wure #- 50@& gksrk gS] fo‘ks"k osru vkSj oS;fDrd osru Hkh lfEefyr gSA tSlk geus vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS] ifji= 29-1-1979 ds v/khu dqVqac fu;kstu ‘kY;fØ;k ds fy, ljdkjh lsod dks e-iz- ewy fu;e ds fu;e 27 ds v/khu iznku dh xbZ nks vfxze osruo`f);k¡ ljdkjh lsod dk oS;fDrd osru gSaA blfy, mDr nks vfxze osruo`f);k¡ fu;ru& iwoZ miyfC/k;ksa esa lfEefyr gSA D;ksafd fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds v/khu ljdkjh lsod dk osru fu;ru&iwoZ miyfC/k;ksa ds Åij ds izØe ij iqujhf{kr osrueku eas fu;r fd;k tkrk gS] ljdkjh lsod dks e-iz osru iqujh{k.k fu;e] 1990 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds v/khu bl nks vfxze osruo`f);ksa dk Qk;nk izkIr gksrk gSA vr%] e-iz- osru iqujh{k.k fu;e] 1990 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds vuqlkj ljdkjh lsod dks osru iqujhf{kr osrueku esa fu;r dj fn, tkus ij og f‘kdk;r ugha dj ldrk fd dqVaqc fu;kstu ‘kY;fØ;k ds fy, mls nh xbZ vfxze osruo`f);k¡ 1-1-1986 dks mlds osrueku ds iqujh{k.k ds le; mlds osru esa lfEefyr ugha dh xbZ gSaA 2001¼3½ ,e ih ,y ts 469 myVk x;kA fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 236 lu~ 2002 iq"VA ¿ iSjk 11 ,oa 12À

ORDER

Patnaik, C.J. -- 1. This is a reference made to the Full Bench by a Division Bench of this Court on a question of law on which there appears to he conflicting opinions of two Division Benches of this Court.

2. The facts briefly are that the respondent No.1 was initially appointed as Sub-Engineer in the Water Resources Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh w.e.f. 24.9.1980. His wife had two children and she went through a family planning operation on 9.6.19X4. Under a circular dated 29.1.1979 of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, General Administrative Department a Government servant who went through family planning operation was to be given two advance increments. Accordingly, by order dated 16.7.1984 of the Executive Engineer, Benganga Project of the Water Resources Department, respondent No. 1 was granted two additional increments w.e.f. 9.6.1984. Thereafter, the pay-scales of Government servants were revised w.e.f 1.1.1986 and the pay of the respondents was fixed in the revised scale of Rs. 2,000-2,900/-. The respondent No.1 entertained a grievance that while fixing his pay in the revised scale of Rs. 2,000-2,900/-, the petitioners have not given him the benefit of two additional increments. He therefore filed OA No. 482/ 1999 before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"), Gwalior Bench for appropriate relief. The petitioner filed a return in the said OA No. 482/1999 contending that at the time of pay fixation in the revised pay scale of Rs. 2,000-2,900/-, the pay of the respondent has been fixed at proper stage on the basis of his basic pay which includes merger of two increments of family planning operation and there is no cause for grievance of the respondent No.1.

3. By order dated 31.8.1989, the Tribunal disposed of the said OA following its decision in OA No. 415/92 and directed that the respondent No.1 be extended the same benefit as has been extended to the applicant of OA No. 415/92, meaning thereby that the petitioners shall refix the pay of the respondent No.1 in the revised scale of pay of Rs. 2,000-2,900/adding one additional increment on account of family planning operation and calculate the arrears and make the payment to the same within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 filed a Miscellaneous Application No. 399/99 before the Tribunal for correction of the said order dated 31.8.1999 and by order dated 21.9.1999, the Tribunal corrected its earlier order dated 31.8.1999 so as to substitute the words "one additional increment" by the words "two additional increments". Hence, by the two orders dated 31.8.1999 and 21.9.1999, the Tribunal directed the State to refix the pay of the respondents in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 2,000-2,900/- adding two additional increments on account of family planning operation and calculate the arrears and make the payment of the same. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for quashing the said order dated 31.8.1999 in OA No. 482/99 as corrected by the 'order dated 21.9.1999 in MA No. 399/99.

4. Before the Division Bench which was hearing the writ petition, a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Vijaya Kothalkar v. State of M.P. and others [2001 (3) MPU 469] was cited on behalf of the respondent No. 1 in which it was held that at the time of fixing pay in the revised scale, due weight-age has to be given to the increments already acquired by incumbent and if that is not done, it would tantamount to denying the benefit which has been acquired by the incumbent to his prejudice. Before the Division Bench hearing the writ petition, another Division Bench judgment in State of M.P. v. D.D. Dekhne and others in WP No. 2036/02 was cited on behalf of the petitioners in which it was held that two advance increments were given as benefit qua particular pay-scale and it cannot be said that a person who has been given a benefit qua pa























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top