KIRTI SAXENA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court a retired Government servant has filed this present petition for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to finalize her terminal dues. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the recovery initiated by the respondents against her.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a Lecturer on 27/10/1965 and the post of Lecturer was later on redesignated as Assistant Professor. It has been further stated that she was promoted as Professor in the year 1985 and later on in the year 2003 she was promoted as Principal of Degree College. The petitioner has further stated that prior to her retirement she has also worked as Assistant Director, Education. The petitioner on completion of 62 years of age has attained the age of superannuation on 30th April, 2007. The petitioner's further contention is that she was awarded a Ph.D. degree on 31/07/1998 and two advance increments were sanctioned vide order dated 24/06/2000. The respondents have withdrawn the benefit of two advance increments sanctioned to the petitioner after her retirement and an entry has been made in the PPO issued on 04/06/2008 for recovering the amount of two advance increments received by the petitioner with effect from 31/07/1998. The petitioner's contention is that she was rightly extended the benefit of two advance increments and, therefore, action of the respondents is bad in law. The petitioner has also stated before this Court that she is in fact a teacher and the respondents have permitted her to continue in service up to 62 years in the light of the statutory provisions as contained under the Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu Dwitiya Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1998. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further argued before this Court that a teacher has been defined under the College Code (Statute 28) framed under the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidhyalaya Adhiniyam,1973 and definition of a teacher as contained in Statute 28 (1) (d) includes the Principal. The petitioner's contention is that for all purpose she has been treated as a Teacher and, therefore, action of the respondents in withdrawing the benefit of two advance increments is bad in law and, therefore, the she is entitled for terminal dues and recovery initiated by the respondents deserves to be quashed by this Court.

(3.) A reply has been filed by the respondents and the respondents have relied upon a circular of the State Government dated 11th October, 1999. The contention of the respondents is that benefit of two advance increments has been extended to the teachers alone. They have relied upon clause 9 (c) of the circular dated 11th October, 1999 and the contention of the respondents is that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was serving as a Principal and was certainly not entitled to the benefit of two advance increments and, therefore, the amount received by virtue of the aforesaid circular is being recovered. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.