aw Irwm mwsrra‘m mm,mn°ra mg? Lud/fx) }>‘H m§aq W3 f/ ma @gk 3mm: Ewfr 3mm gkv, a'e'mwsr- m g‘hmvwf’r %?tmg Wu‘raa (Ema trWz’rm‘rn 3;?ua5rfr, g‘hai?,%IaT %aTa?,5‘ca°raJig W arrEEm afrana mm, awT-awa 5W mm Irma 5% co mam, WIgngwFraw b; UH! £1 Q: Er“ £ fzfed vu c‘ %n. g. m a3, §T¥T—gga a‘m, 3w Tami limu, ma; ammaTaTa 3mm {Mam m Wamgm§$wrg Kama umma‘r mw&, ‘harm' W WT—?§aTag?,EE?rmg . F )r ( a ;5€.ra!i EE? Efar 3Fa§ia H‘T w gmam mm $‘m‘mn 1985 W TQ $ /2DD i g , SB: HON’BLE SHRI MANINDRA’MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,J. 22.G2.20i$ Snn Rakesh Pandey couusd for the petitioner. v I bhn Arvmd Dubev. Pane Lawyer for the Stat€j respondants. Heard. 2. The petitioner has med whis petition being aggrieved by order dated 5.8. 1999, Annexule A/E , by which, two advance increments graxrted to the petitioner eark er vide order dated 19.8.1975 have been withdrawn. ’ ‘ 3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was initiany appointed on the post ‘of LoWer Division Clerk and Typist on 315* January, 1972, Annexure A—1. While continuing in serviee, the petitioner passed Hindi Typing examiiation‘ on 23rd March, 1975 and thereaiter vide order dated 19 8.1975, Annexure A—2, the petitioner was granted two advance 1n rements The said order refers’to G A D Circular dated 19 4 19 8 and 20 4 1974 Later on, however, the impugned order was passe Withdrawmg the aforesaid benefits ‘4. Learned counsel for ‘ e petitioner submits that after he passed the Typing examinatio vide order dated 19m August, 1975, benefit of ‘two advance incre ents was granted to him, in View of Government Circular dated 20 April 1974. The said circular dated 20th April, 1974, Annexure A] clarified that the earlier decision of the Government taken on 13 July, 1973 not to extend the benefit \\ \ \ \ [ac E20 mamrtéaim ‘ ammsramim mmwma l mm#wm . aiWanésT pon passing of Typing examination, Wm t of the apyoint’ments made after the an i.e. 13th July, 1973. On this basis, He further -nt Policy decision to review. earlier e basis to withdraw certain benefits submission is that the withdrawal of ailed civil consequences and therefore, ; the impugned order, petitioner was unity of hean'ng. of two advance increments u be appiicame only in respa said data of ths Policy deciSi th¢ pati‘cioner was granted submits that any subsequ< decision could not be mad ograntcd caliier. His further two advance increments ent in any case, before paSSin; entitled to be given an opporl 5. submits that beneficial sche' upon passing of Typing exam 13th July, 1973 by stating th 18.8. 1971, would not be e‘ increments upon passing 'I‘ that later on, circular was Directorate issued memo Agriculture, Bilaspur follow Bil two advance increments. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondents me of grant of two advance increments ination was clarified vide circular dated at those who have been appointed after mitled to the benefit of two advance ng examination. He further submits ‘ssued on 15.3.1977, on which basis, 28.7.1978 to the Joint Director d by memo dated 14.9.1978 of Joint addressed Dy. Director Agriculture, Agriculture, Bilaspur, Raigar benent of two advance examination was an incenti was not an essential q Steno—typist. Since, this has Director and Sarguja. Itis submitted that the rements upon passing of Typing e when passing of’l‘yping eXamination tion for appointment to the post of become an essential qualification w.e.f. pur: to mania snéat nail; (W) y u i n a ‘ c m mmfm III-IIIIIIIIIIIIIII' ................. aqzo mam (W) mmmméw 3 mamm ammsrm mam§wmw aw%qsnéa- to claim two advanca increments upon 18.8. 1971, there was no" right passing of Typing examination 6. I have considered the contentions made by the respective parties and perused the record. 7. Vide circular dated 2Ot1 decision was taken that order prospective operation. In th stated that the benefit of ad will not be extended to thos July, 1973. This was a consc‘ the said document. The deci though w.e.f. 18:8.1971, pass essential quah‘fication, since increments was withdrawn v same would be treated as thereafter, would not be entitl the petitioner was granted b6 order dated 19m August, 1E decision was in vogue. x 8. record as Annexure — R/ 2 was ‘ after the date of passing of Ty] April, 1974, Annexure A/5, a Policy udated 13m March, 1973 will have only : said Policy decision, it was clearly ce increments by way of incentive, who have been appointed after 13th us Policy decision as is retlected from sion was in the light of the facts that ng of Typing examination has become the Policy of grant of two advance Lde order dated 13th July, 1973, the cut off date and those appointed ed to this benefit. The date on which, netit of two advance increments vide 75, Annexure A/2, this very Policy The circular referred ta) by the respondents and placed on issued on 15th March, 1977 i.e. much )ing examination by the petitioner and mmahaia? aanmwm mmwma > (4— mm#w®1§n $Wméa .ents to the petitioner. This circular grant of two advance increrr provided as below: A. Thoss Lower Divisi( after 19.4.1968, but beneiit of Clause 1 s if they pass Typing e Those who have Division Clerk after not be granted ben dated 19.4.1968 if It is c1a1i'&ed that be available to th ' Division Clerk b 13.7.1973, who w Typing examination of their appointment. 9, From the various circ1 time to time, it appears tha advance increments was bein when the petitioner was granted this benent of two advance increments upon passing of A/ 2, it was not illegal. It was only in view of subsequent circular issued in 1977 that clarifications were issued. in Clerks, who have been appointed before 28.8. 1971 will not be entitled to 11b clause (i) of order dated 19.4.1968 Kamination after their appointment. appointed on‘ fixed pay as Lower 28.8.1971 and before 13.7.1973 will nt of Clause 1 sub clause (i) of order ey pass the Typing examination. flt of two advance increments would who have been appointed as Lower en the period from 19.4.1968 and re possessed of circular of passing om recognized In'Stitution at the time W $mf$ .................................... wL 20 amm (W) ilars issued by the Government from ; the Policy in regard to grant of two g changed from time to time. However, Typing examinan'on vide order dated 19m August, 1975, Annexure b b o e n e e '“ (€53 mmqi$ .................................... £120 " melm (W) msr%r1%wiai ~ mmwm‘a- g’ WWW§1$$W mnméerm aiwmw 10. In th6 opinion of Court, such subsequent changei clarification in the Policy, co d not be made basis to Withdraw the benefits which were grant to the petitioner, pamculmly,’when such giant was not in Violati n of any law for the time being iii force ,or any Policy decision in exi tence on ‘rhe'day, benefit was granted. It is pertinent to note that April, 1974, Annexure A/ 5, benefit. In addition, the im ugned action and order ofwithdrawing advance increments defmitel resulted in adverse civil consequence as the petitioner suffered View of the Policy decision dated 20th petitioner was clearly entitled to this ncial loss. The principles of natural justice, therefore, 'obliged th respondents to hear the petitioner and give him an opportunity be re taking the action of withdrawal of benefitof two advance incre ents. 11. In View of the aforesai discussion, I am unable to uphold the impugned order dated 5.8. 19 9, Annexure A/3. 12. Consequently, the is quashed. Consequential benefit shall follow. No order as to c sts. Sdl- J i 4;.)udge WVW ‘ " s e ' e a s e