SHIV KUMAR SWARANKAR AND OTHERS Vs. REGISTRAR, CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioners craving for four advance increments as granted to their junior respondent No. 3-B.T. Shendumikar.

(2.) All the petitioners are employees of the Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Marketing Federation-respondent No. 2. The petitioner No. 1-Shiv Kumar Swarankar holding Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and is working as an Executive Engineer in the Technical Establishment of the respondent-Federation with effect from 25th Oct., 1979. The petitioner No. 2-Raghuraj Singh Thakur also holds a degree of Bachelor in Mechanical Engineering and is working as Plant Engineer in the respondent-Federation since 17th May, 1980. The petitioner No. 3-Subodh Kumar Saraswat is also a Bachelor of Electrical Engineering and working as a Plant Engineer in the respondent-Federation with effect from 8-12-1981. Earlier to his appointment as Plant Engineer, he was appointed in the Federation on 22-12-1971 and was promoted as an Assistant Engineer on 1-12-72. The grievance of all the three petitioners is that the respondent No. 3-B.T. Shendumikar who holds a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and was promoted to the post of Plant Engineer on 8-12-81, though Junior to the petitioners, has been granted four advance increments by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 while the petitioners have been denied such advance increments by the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Society. It has been alleged that though the respondent-Federation, on the representations made by the petitioners, by its resolution dated 15-3-1983 (Document No. 5) which was further confirmed in the subsequent meeting dated 8-4-1983 (Document No.6) had recommended for grant of the advance increments to the petitioner No. 1, and three advance increments to the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 so as to bring their salary at par with their junior respondent No. 3. But, the Additional Registrar by its order dated 19-5-15C3 rejected the said recommendations which led to the filing of this petition.

(3.) The respondents have opposed the petition by stating in their reply that four increments were given to the respondent No. 3 on account of outstanding performance as Plant Engineer of Rice Bran Oil Mill, Durg and the management was benefited on account of his meritorious services. It has been further stated that the petitioners cannot claim the grant of incentive as of right because in the very nature of things the incentives have the nexus of some outstanding performances. On these grounds, the petition has been opposed.