W.P.S No.10844/2004 Rajendra Kumar Khare vs. State of M.P. & ors. 13.12.2011 Shri Mahendra Patariya learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Mahesh Tiwari, Panel Lawyer, for the respondent/State. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 24.5.2004 issued by the respondent no.3 whereby the stagnation allowance has been disallowed to the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for grant of regular increment which fell due to the petitioner on 17.9.1978 and thereafter to release arrears of the difference of pay and allowance from 17.9.1978 till the date of his retirement. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that the petitioner was working as an Overseer in the Irrigation Department. He was awarded punishment of withholding of one increment non-cumulative by order dated 26.9.1979. It is stated that pursuant to the aforesaid order of punishment, instead of withholding one increment with prospective effect, the respondent authorities have withheld the increment due on 17.9.1978 and have also denied him stagnation allowance. The respondents have filed a return and submitted that the petitioner was due for grant of annual increment on 17.9.1978 and 17.9.1979, 1 W.P.S No.10844/2004 Rajendra Kumar Khare vs. State of M.P. & ors. however at the relevant time the petitioner was drawing maximum of the time scale and, therefore, for the purpose of implementing the punishment awarded to the petitioner of stoppage of one increment by order dated 26.9.1979, the stagnation allowance being given to the petitioner was withheld. In the circumstances it is stated that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the respondent authorities. It is also specifically stated that the order has not been implemented retrospectively. The aforesaid stand of the respondent has not been refuted by the petitioner. In the circumstances, as no fault can be found with the order of the respondent authorities withholding of one increment non-cumulatively and denial of stagnation allowance which is in accordance with the instructions of the State Government, Annexure P-1, dated 26.9.1979, I do not find any reason to interfere in the act of the respondents. The petition, being meritless is, accordingly dismissed. C.C as per rules. ( R. S. JHA ) J U D G E mms/- 2