^r- [^^7 IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W. P. (SlNo.l^^fc.ofSOll Slni fc^ PETITIONER ^ RESPONDENTS VERSUS :!,- .yry .. s°%y ^y$ 7/y '2. 3. .^ ->- 4. 5. Dr. Sadhana Shome, aged about 49 years, W/o Shri V.K. Shome, R/o Kasimpara, Shomegali, Near Central School, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Higher Education Departinent, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Coniinissioner, Higher Education Departaient, Science College Preinises, Raipur (C.G.) Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit, Geetanjali Vihar Colony, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) D.P. Vipra College, through the Principal, Near Mama Bhanja Talab, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) University Grants Commission, Through the Secretary, Bahadur Shah JafarMarg, New DeUii. .,."'»Tft^y WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CON^nTUTION OF INDIA 1 PARTICULARS QF THE PETITIONER :- As stated above in cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OFTHE RESPONDENTS :- As stated above in cause title. 3. PARTICULARS OF THE ORDER AGAIKST WHICH THIS PETITION IS MADE:- ^;'a.&.'••<> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 1776 of 2011 / PETITIONER Dr. Sadhana Shome VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Pratik Sharma counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Payasi PL for the respondents 1 & 2/State. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal counsel for respondent No.4 Shri S.S. Rajput counsel for respondent No.5 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA OROER (09.11.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that though she is entitled for the benefit of two advance increments under Career Advancement Scheme dated 28.10.2011 (Annexure P-1) issued by the fr*s&te of Madhya Pradesh, the same has not been extended to her by completely misunderstanding the provision of said scheme. 2. As per the case of the petitioner, she was awarded Ph.D. on 29.3.1993 and vide order dated 22.1.2000 selection grade was given to her with effect from 15.10.1998, therefore, as per clause 8-C of the scheme (Annexure P-1) she is entitled for two advance increments. 3. As per the return filed by respondents 1 to 3, case of the petitioner falls under clause 8-D of the scheme (Annexure P-1) according to which as the petitioner was not awarded Ph.D. after 27.7.1998, she is not entitled for the benefit oftwo advance increments. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that case of the petitioner was even duly forwarded by respondent No.4 but the said benefit has not been extended to her. He submits that on 31.8.2011 UGC issued a letter dated 31.8.2001 (Annexure P-5) clarifying that the teachers who acquired Ph.D. W^ -^T?F ^'Fti^'^''^^?"'---—-""^^ :^:^:^: 'ii^^^^t^^^^-^^^^^^^ during service prior to 1.1.1996 but not given the benefit of any advance increment as per Career Advancement Scheme, may be given the benefit of two advance increments subject to the applicability of the same from 27.7.1998. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. Clause 8-C of the Career Advancement Scheme reads as under: "'ft-T?^ '•^t 'EroriSr STR^) ftrsraT ^ gq^ ^uft ^d'iii-i ^^eTT.pT gt^ TR ^t 3[RPI ^cT-T ^feqT ^t 41^1(11 ?t-ift 1 Vg R-ll'* 27—07-1998 ^t 3raT4T ^T^ 4!?T|lcl ^?? ^Bft ^cl-111-1 TT? TT? 4<;1"lRr TTFcT V^ ^rat' qi^ ^ ^T ?t-iTT l' Clause 8-D of the Career Advancement Scheme reads as under: • y^^i tbi^'id ftrera; ^T arq^ ^<<|ct>id ^" Tft—T^^t arfSr TTP<T ^r^ TR arRT^T tcT-T ^feqt' ^ qracTT ?Mt i Vg 'gf^ETT R-if'f; 27—07-98^t arsrar 5^ q^id. ^ft—T^^ ^nfSr 1BTl<T ^t ^rat' ^t ^ ^T 'gtTH | A bare perusal of the said clause makes it clear that case of the petitioner who was possessing Ph.D. and was also given selection grade from |5<10.1998 i.e. after 27.7.1998, is covered by clauseS-C of the scheme. Clause 8-D of the scheme is a separate clause dealing with different class of employees, and the said clause does not contain any mention of selection grade whereas clause 8-C specifically says that the employees who have acquired Ph.D. during service and have been granted the benefit of selection grade after 27.7.1998, are entitled for the benefit of two advance increments. 7. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for two advance increments in the light of clause 8-C of the Career Advancement Scheme (Annexure P-1). ^ — Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge