LEELA VAIDYA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed being aggrieved by the wrong fixation of pay made by the respondents and only Rs.5 towards the benefit of two advance increments on account of passing of the B.Ed. examination has been given to the petitioner.

(2.) It is submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher on 7.12.1971 and since then he is performing his duties with sincerity and utmost devotion. Prior to entry into the employment he was already possessing the qualification of B.Ed, therefore, in terms of the instructions issued by the respondent/department the petitioner was entitled for two advance increments on account of passing the B.Ed. examination prior to entry into the employment. The petitioner on attaining the age of 62 years stood retired from service but the aforesaid benefit was not extended to the petitioner. The petitioner has filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 823/2005 and the same was decided on 18.03.2005 and the Hon'ble High Court has disposed of the writ petition with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the direction issued by the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal in OA No.222/2002 vide order dated 17.04.2002 which was duly affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.483/2007 vide order dated 04.08.2008 wherein it was held that the employee who has passed the B.Ed examination prior to entry in service is entitled to the benefit of two advance increments. He has further relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of W.A. No.483/07 (State of M.P. vs. Ku. Leela Vaidya) and placing reliance upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Asha Saxena vs. State of M.P. being SLP (Civil) No.18881/2006 decided on 7.5.2008 wherein it was held that the person who has passed the B.Ed. examination before his entry in the service entitled to the benefit of two advance increments. It is further submitted that owing to non-compliance of the order passed in the Writ Petition No.823/2005 a contempt petition was preferred by the petitioner which was registered as Contempt Petition No.80/2009 but the contempt petition was disposed of on the wrong statement made by the counsel which was made mistakenly. Thereafter, a review petition was filed which was numbered as Review No.346/09 for recalling the order passed in the contempt petition but the same was disposed of granting an opportunity for filing a fresh contempt petition. Thereafter, a fresh contempt petition was preferred bearing Contempt Petition No.527/2011 and they have filed the compliance report in the contempt petition pointing out the fact that they have complied with the directions and extended the benefits to the petitioner but they have made a wrong fixation. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that in similar circumstances benefits have been extended to one Jai Prakash Mishra who was also in the same pay scale as that of the petitioner. He has drawn attention of this Court to the extract of the service book of Jai Prakash Mishra and has argued that the case of the present petitioner is exactly identical to that of Jai Prakash Mishra, therefore, the respondents/authorities in not extending the aforesaid benefit to the petitioner is highly discriminatory and against the settled principles of natural justice and fair play. He has prayed for a direction to the respondent/authorities to do the proper fixation of the petitioner and grant him the benefit of two advance increments in terms of the Pandey Pay Commission and revise the pay of the petitioner applicable from time to time till his date of superannuation.

(3.) Per contra, counsel for the State has submitted that in the earlier round of litigation in pursuance to the directions given by this Court they have complied with the direction and have extended the benefit of increments to the petitioner in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asha Saxena (supra). It is further submitted that the petitioner could not point out any illegality in the fixation of the petitioner but could not dispute the factum of fixation in the case of Jai Prakash Mishra which is said to be identically situated to that of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the authorities have not considered the case of the petitioner properly and promptly. Thus, the present petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to prefer a detailed representation to the respondents No.2 and 3 along with all the relevant documents and the respondents No. 2 and 3 are directed to dwell upon the representation submitted by the petitioner and if the case of the petitioner is found identical to that of Jai Prakash Mishra the benefit as extended to Jai Prakash Mishra be also extended to the petitioner or else the representation may be considered and decided by speaking order and be communicated to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.