BEFORE THE M.P. STATE ADMINIS^St^TIVE TRIBUNM.: RAIPDR BENCH O.A. N0 . /^i.s) / 2 000 t^ fti 3 3 9S-/^- IPPLICANT:- SsMT. KANTI CHOUBEY W/o SHRI S.CHOUBEY ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (ZOOLOGY) GOVT. ARTS & SCIENCE COLLEGE, DURG (M.P.) '^xe^ags »l71"l f-(7edfo(<ay..'.S?...J:"....^.'-«.— iys<Tr,-.%^.£;Mtx^a. 'fSr Keglsttar, M. f.'State / lim. Tribunal,^ RM UP. 3. VERSUS • STATE OF H.P. THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION GOVT. OF M.P. VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (M.P.) THE eOMHISSIONER, HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVT. OF M.P. SATPUDA BHAWAN, BHOPAL (M.P.) THE PRINCIPAL, : GOVT. ARTS & SCIENCE COLLEGE, DURG (M.P.) IORIGINAL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE M.P. STATE LXZE- mnTpTTwjn^___-&.dm 1 Q 8^ AP^ HIGH GH COURT OF CHHATTiSs -i : BiLASPUF Writ_°etit|onjSl ,331 AW^5? Smt. Kanti Choubev itate of M.P. & Others Post for pronouncement ofjudgmsnt on the _^_ day of November, 2C'09 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge r^\ COURT OF CHHAT iLASI WnlPetiTOniSi .,; of '£I 1 1 i^a^ Smt. Kanti Choubev ov Versu® ^t' .aua f^f*. 'ONDENTS of WP. & Oihere Sinais Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. ^ ^ —r^^isn-i P?iii7'<s t^r'y^i f;n!!n?.ia| fr^r fh^ ri^tifirsn^r :Vt^ ; v.'Mi^st.t IWiit^tA, irfi-'Jwtt li/''.'s s'hrfi a( !i'>..r ^^•'^ Ww^-ri :^^: . 31-sri P.K. Bh w's P.K. Bhadurl, Panel Lav/ysr for the Sta'te. JUDG (Passed on this I'Silay of November, 2009) Bv this oetition. the petitioner seeks: a dirsction io the respondent-authorities to grant one family increFnsnt to fe-.e petitloner with effect from 22-5-1995 tiil date with 18% intersst per annum on ihe amount of arrears. The facis, in nutsheli, as projected by the petitioner, are that Initiaiiy the petltioner was appointed as AssisSanf Professor on ad hoc basis and thereafter the services of the cetitioner n'as regularizsd. Bv order dated 24-5-1991 s'Annexure - Ai'3) the petitioner 'A'as aranted one advance increment w.e.f. 31-1-1989 on th®around that after having three chiSdren. ths pet'tioner hsd undergons the famiiv planning operation. The appiicant was given the faenefit of senior grade pay scaie of Rs.3000-1C»-3500-125-a300 by order dated 22-6-1995, 'ncwever, instead of fixlng fhe pay sca!e of Rs.31 00,'- the resoondent-authorities havs fixed the same at Rs.3000/-. Thus, the respondent-authoritiss havs deprived the pefitloner from getting the femiiy planning increment. Being sggrieved by t'ne said action, the Detrtioner submitted representations oetore the ities concerned, butthe same did notfructify. Hence, this petition. 1 j?'^ ^l~^ t\ F, ^ ft •^; -'" ^ ?«?s Fouzia Mirza, isarnsd eounsei appearing for ths pstitioner, would submit that accordina to various circuSars of the Government, the Government sen'ants who have undergone ramily pianning operation after twc or three chlidren, are entitled to the benefit of two and one Increment, resDective!'/. Non-grant of incrsmsnts is COHtfSrv 10 IH6 OQI!CV Qi ins' ^oysrnmsH's. L&srnsa counssi Vyouia furthsr submit that ths petitioner was grantsd advance mcrement of Rs.100/- fc.r hsving undergone famiiy pianning operation after three ehildren on 31-1-989. Ms Mirza would submit that the said 'ncrement has not been inciuded in the revised pay scsie. L.esrned .^•n,?*''' -'51 !'t'^. »^y/Mt^** 'T'hnk/^'^ tT-t/^ ^^ v^ <"ti »F% ^h. ^> t^ ^t rf^i 3^^' /^t 1 cfr'if^,/»i1r*?Tl^^/<i v*ift,^f\\.f t/^ ^^ ./^ ^T'/v.^h'^rf^ If^f ^*^^ W'.JUi 3,3=3 yiCtV'5 ^ iCl i.2 l^ J CiS^UHU^E 3L CiUi.Uw'l lU^O i^Slf 1-'^ Ull'S'wiit;iJ i<^ f It p/^ •^rrf^l J^^ 1} 11 grani Tamiiy pianning increment in Tavour OT ine peaiioner. uase 01 •^tln i"<*^T^S^It' i-S- ^h l^/'kyS^^B^ ^W^/>i l^J**! ne oeiiiioner is inst ine ssav nxation snouics oe aone on minimum o' ••w' S Wf~,, On the other hand, Shri Bhaduri, isarned Pane! Lawyer SDDearing for ths State submits thaf the famiiv Dianning increment has been grantsd in ravour of ths isetitioner w.e.f. 31-1-1989, whieh is cisar ^" ii Usc '.^iUsE uc*iated 24-5-1991. Thsreaftsr- bv oroer date, 19-12-1996 ths psv scale of' the Detitlonsr was revised to Rs.3000-5000 w.e.f. 22-S-1995, therefore, sgain grantlng fan-iiiy isiannina incremsnt on the revissd oav scaie of Rs3000-5000 is not at ali possibie. During the sep»ice career of the Government smpioyss opsiy GHCS ism\:y' pisnniny incrsinsni CaH DS yiv^fi snu V. that 'A'as siven to the petitloner w.e.f. 31-1-19% and on accounf of merger of the said increment in the saiary of ths pstitloner on 22-6-1995 ihe saiary of the petiiionsr came io the pay sca!e of' Rs.3100oermonth. ^' '^SS^... ^.1 '•A. t-^-"»/ 3 ^ 5. I have heard iearned counsej appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and She documents appended thereto. S. Admittedly, by order dated 24-5-1991 the pstitioner was granted the benefit of familv planning increment w.e.f. 31-1-1989. Thsreaftsr. by order dated 19-12-1996 the pay scaie of the pstitioner has been ravised w.s.f. 22-S-19S5 to Rs.3000-5000 and on accounf of merger of familv Riannlna increment the oav scaie of the petitloner was fixed at Rs.3100 per month. The Government sep/ant is entitied So familv olannina increment oniv once during hls/her seri/ice career. Thus, the oetitioner is not entitled to any reilef. 7. ln the affidavit dated 25-3-2008 the State suthoritiss have caiegorically stated as under: "7. That, it would bc oertinent to mention herein that during the sen/ice career of the pvernment employee oniy once famiiy ptanning increment can be given and that was aivsn to the Dstitioner on 31-1-1989 and it was oniv as a resuit of the merger of the said increment in the salar/ of the petitioner that on 22-6-1995 her saiary scals came to the scaie of Rs.3100/- per month. Thus, It would be apparent that the famiiy pianning incremant given to the petitioner on 31-1-1989 has already been rnerged in the saiary scale of the petifioner and once ths famHy pianning increment has been given to the petitioner, the petltioner cannot now again ciaim the increment on the ground offamily p'annsng." 8. in view of cateaorical sverment made bv the State authorities in the affidavit thai pay scaie in case of the petitioner sfter merging the familv oiannina increment was fixed at Rs.3100/- oer month, nothing remains for adjudicaiion. Thus, the reiief as prayed for by the Detitioner has aireadv been Grantsd bv the State. !n a case where the oetitioner is ciaimina increment 'A'.e.f. 22-S-1995 aiona .-wu.uiauuiM^a,.. yg^i /"• /.•tf-"-^ '^ ;!i>-,»^..>... ''- '^^^t^^:. i 'A Oowri a. 10. ^ ^ with 18% interesi per annum, which had aiready been granted by order dated 24-5-1991 is not entitied to anv interest. Even otherA'ise, granting or increment is to be taken as speciai pay because the reilef is granted to oniv those emoioyees who have underaone the familv piannina ODeration and If the same is tateen as a.speciai pay attached to the empjpyee vs?ho had undergone Tamliv pianning ODeration, provisions of Rule 11 or the Madhva Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1890 wouid be appiicable. Under t'ne said provlsion in case of Government sewants who are in recei SDeciai oav in addltion to oav in the existina scaie. The same shaii continue to be so attac'hed with the revised scate tili the. Siate Government 6therwise directs. In the case on hand, it has been specifically made clear that while fixing the revised pay scale, the pay scale of the Detltioner has been fixed at Rs.3100/- psr montb. Slnce the reilef souaht for bv the petitioner has aiready bsen granted, no further order is necessary. ' Accordingiv, the writ isetition is disposed of. No order asio costs. Sd/ Satish K.