STATE OF MP Vs. JAGDISH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . This writ appeal has been filed by the appellants/State challenging the order dated 29th April, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4817/2003.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge has passed the following order : Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to refix the pay of the petitioner by adding one increment to the basic pay of the petitioner in accordance with the orders passed and decision taken in the case of JS Tomar (supra) and other cases referred to herein above. Necessary action be taken for refixation of the pay of the petitioner and after calculating the arrears, payment thereof be made to him within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(3.) THE controversy involved in this writ appeal has already been set at rest by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of MP vs. R.K. Chaturvedi [ : 2006 (2) MPLJ 374]. The Full Bench has held as under : An employee whose pay is revised w.e.f. 1/1/1986 in accordance with sub -rule (1) of Rule 7 of the MP Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 automatically gets the benefit of the advance increments given to him for Family Planning operations under the circular dated 29/1/1979. The two advance increments granted under Rule 27 of the MP Fundamental Rules for a government servant for Family Planning operation under the circular dated 29/1/1979 constitute 'personal pay' of the government servant. Therefore, the said two advance increments are included in the pre -fixation emoluments. Since under sub -rule (1) of Rule 7, the pay of a government servant is fixed in the revised scale at the stage above the pre -fixation emoluments, the government servant gets the benefit of the two advance increments at the time of fixation of his pay in the revised scale under sub -rule (1) of Rule 7 of the M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1990. Hence, once the pay of government servant in the revised scale is fixed in accordance with sub -rule (1) of Rule 7 of the M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1990, he cannot have a grievance that the two advance increments given to him for Family Planning operations have not been included in his pay a the time of revision of his pay scale w.e.f. 1/1/1986. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside.