BHARTI KAIWARTYA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is the action on part of the respondents in discontinuing the benefit of one increment which the petitioner has got on undergoing family planning operation while granting the benefit of revision of pay in July-2016.

(2.) The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that, the benefit which has been extended to the petitioner of two increments on undergoing family planning operation cannot be curtailed, withdrawn or stopped even while granting the benefit of revision of pay. According to him, the said issue already stands decided by the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.362/1998 decided on 14/12/2000. According to him, since the benefit has already been extended to the petitioner at one point of time, the same could not have been either withdrawn or discontinued even on revision of pay. He further submits that, even otherwise, the said action is bad for the reason that, the decision of the respondents in discontinuing the benefit is without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thus it is violative of principles of natural justice.

(3.) Having heard the contentions put forth by the counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that, prima-facie, it appears that there does not seem to be an order passed by the authorities in discontinuing the benefit which has been extended, neither does the action of the respondents seem to have been taken after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This High Court also in WPS No. 4486/2005 in the case of A. K. Kesharwani Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others decided on 09.03.2010 have held that not including of the advance increment which the petitioner was getting on account of undergoing family planning operation at the time of implementation of revision of pay to be bad in law. The Case of A. K. Kesharwani was decided in the light of the Division Bench Judgment of M.P. High Court in the case of Dr. Smt. Vijya Kothalkar Vs. State of M.P. and Others, (2001) 5 MPHT 295(D.B.).