A K KESHARWANI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally.

(2.) Petitioner's grievance arises on account of deprivation of one advance increment which was granted to him earlier based of Government's policy of grant of one advance increment for family planning. On 25-8-1988, petitioner's wife had undergone family planning operation (Tubectomy) as is evident from Medical Certificate dated 25-8-1988 (Annexure A-2). In view of the Govt, circular dated 29-1-1979, petitioner became entitled to, one advance increment. Said increment was extended to the petitioner w.e.f. 25-8-1988. However, when occasion arose for fixation of pay in the revised U.G.C. pay scale w.e.f. 1-1-1996 under M.P./C.G. Revision of Pay Rules, 1998, the said benefit of advance increment was not extended to the petitioner.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that once benefit of advance increment has been granted to him, the same could not be withdrawn. Learned Counsel further submits that neither the provision relating to fixation of pay in the revised U.G.C. Pay scale nor any other Government circular stipulated such course of action to be implemented while fixing pay in the revised pay scale. Learned Counsel placed reliance upon the decision of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Dr. Smt. Vijaya Kothalkar, Ujjain Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2001 5 MPHT 295 (DB).