( 1. ) THE petitioner is hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and illegality of the judgment and order passed by the M. P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as sat for convenience) in the matter of Original Application No. 335/99, dated 23-3-1999.

( 2. ) SOME facts need to be stated for the purpose of understanding the matter in better way. The petitioner (Dr. Smt. Vijaya Kothalkar) had been working on the post of Assistant Professor from 18-9-74 in the pay-scale of Rs. 620-1300 and 700-1300. She had acquired the seniority on 18-9-85 and, therefore, she was sanctioned two advanced increments of Rs. 50/- in the aforesaid pay-scale by the Principal, Government Girls P. G. College, Ujjain (hereinafter referred to as the concerned College for convenience ). The same order was passed on 7-10-1985. The said advanced increments were given to her in view of the recommendation of the pande Pay Commission and in accordance with the General Administration Departments Memorandum dated 8-5-73. The pay-scale of the Asstt. Professors was revised in the tune of Rs. 2200-4000 from 1-1-86. Later on, vide State Governments Letter dated 30-5-90 the senior pay-scale of Rs. 3000-5000 was sanctioned with effect from 1-1-86 to Mrs. Kothalkar, the present petitioner and her pay was revised at the minimum of pay-scale of Rs. 3000/ -. The petitioner had contended that she was entitled to get her pay-scale fixed keeping in view the two increments which she had acquired on the fact that she was standing at the higher ladder of the stair-case on account of those two advanced increments in accordance with she was taken into consideration vide fixing her pay and a due weightage was to be given to that and after that the pay of Mrs. Kothalkar should have been fixed in the revised pay-scale in view of the recommendations of the pande Pay Commission. That was not done and, therefore, she filed a petition before the SAT and that came to be decided by virtue of the judgment of the SAT dated 23-3-1999.

( 3. ) IT is necessary for the purpose of a reference to mention few facts, which led to this second battle of the litigation. On account of the two orders passed by the Members of the SAT, the petitioner was required to approach the High Court and after hearing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the contentions raised by her, the Division Bench of this High Court passed the judgment and directed the Chairman of the SAT to constitute an appropriate Bench for the purpose of deciding the grievance echoed by the petitioner before the SAT and, therefore, again the matter was heard and the decision came in view of the judgment, which has been quoted above, which is dated 23-3-1999.

( 4. ) SHRI G. M. Chaphekar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the SAT committed a gross error of mis-reading the facts and distinguishing the case of the petitioner from the case of two Asstt.

Professors, namely, G. S. Tomar and Diwakar Kothalkar. While deciding the objections of G. S. Tomar (O. A No. 286/92, G. S. Tomar v. . State of M. P. and others) the SAT took the view that G. S. Tomar was done with injustice when his pay was not properly fixed keeping in view the advanced increments, which he had acquired. In the matter of Diwakar Kothalkar v. . Secretary, Public Health Department and another (O. A. No. 2962/91) also the SAT took the view that in his case the advanced increments were withdrawn on account of audit objections and, therefore, he could not have been denied the advantage of putting him at the higher ladder of the pay-scale by virtue of acquiring of those two advanced increments. Shri Chaphekar submitted that the SAT committed the gross error in not appreciating the case of the petitioner and went wrong in distinguishing the present matter from the case of those two persons. He pointed out that the reason given by the SAT in distinguishing the case of G. S. Tomar (supra) was not co