1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6241/1996 Kapoor Chand Sharma vs. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors. Date of order : 6/4/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Ashok Kumar Bhargava for the petitioner. Shri Ganesh Meena, Government Counsel for the respondents. ****** This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order of the Tribunal dated 18.6.1996 by which his claim for grant of three advanced grade increments on acquiring the degree of B.Ed. was turned down. Shri Ashok Kumar Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Tribunal was wholly unjustified in declining the aforesaid benefit to the petitioner only because the petitioner when he was appointed as Craft Teacher was granted the benefit of two advanced grade increments. It was contended that that time the petitioner was appointed on the post of Craft Teacher, therefore, the pay scale was different than the pay scale of General 2 Teachers and once petitioner acquired qualification of B.Ed., he was eligible for taking general classes in spite of being Craft Teacher and therefore his case ought to have been considered at par with other General Teacher who acquired B.Ed. degree and on that basis, were granted the benefit of two advanced grade increments. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even if eventually this plea of the petitioner is not accepted, the writ petition deserves to be allowed at least to the extent that since the petitioner was not denied those benefits on account of misrepresentation on his part, the recovery amount of Rs.10,825/- pursuant to the order dated 29.8.1989 be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel cited the judgement of in Shyam Babu Verma & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.-(1994) 2 SCC 521 in support of his argument. Shri Ganesh Meena, Learned Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that petitioner at the time of initial appointment as Craft Teacher was on the basis of his qualification already 3 considered as a trained Craft Teacher and on that analogy, was granted benefit of two advanced grade increments. The benefit of two advanced grade increments is permissible only to such General Teachers when they pass the B.Ed. qualification. It was argued that petitioner has failed to produce any document to show that his appointment was changed from Craft Teacher to General Teacher. In view of this, his case was liable to be treated having already availed the benefit of two advanced grade increments. Learned counsel submits that the judgement of the learned Tribunal is perfectly valid. It was further submitted that the writ petition has been filed belatedly because the benefit was denied to the petitioner firstly in 1988 and subsequently in the year 1995. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the Tribunal in the impugned judgement has declined the benefit of two grade increments to the petitioner on the analogy that petitioner was already treated as trained Craft Teacher when he was 4 initially appointed and was granted the benefit of two advanced grade increments. When already petitioner was granted such benefit, he could not again be granted benefit of two advanced increments even if he acquired the qualification of B.Ed. No material or data has been placed on record to show that the pay scale in which the petitioner was initially appointed was much more than the untrained Teachers, who later on acquiring the qualification of B.Ed. were granted two advance grade increments. Advance grade increments were granted to several Craft Teachers as also to Music Teachers and Drawing Teachers on the same analogy on which such grade increments were granted to the General Teachers. In other words, some of the untrained Teachers were not granted the benefit of two increments whereas such of those who were trained were granted such benefits and on the same analogy General Teachers before acquiring qualification of B.Ed. were not granted such benefits. The moment they acquired such qualification, benefit of two increments 5 were granted to them. Petitioner obviously cannot be granted such benefit of jump by two grade increments at later point of time because at the initial stage of his appointment itself, he already had higher start and was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.75-160. I therefore do not find any infirmity in the judgement of the Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed. However, when petitioner has already retired in the year 1998 and that the respondents have not been able to show that the benefit drawn by the petitioner was on the basis of misrepresentation or fraud on his part, therefore, recovery order dated 29.8.1989 is quashed and set aside. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/