Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sagar Singh Sen vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 March, 2022
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP.No.10540/2020 (S)
(Sagar Singh Sen and Others Vs. State of M.P. & Others)
Gwalior Bench : Dated : 22.03.2022
Shri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri G.K.Agrawal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/
State.
With the consent of parties, the matter is finally heard. Instant petition is preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 03.07.2020 (Annexure P/1(a)) collectively filed alongwith Annexures P/1(b), P/1(c), P/1(d), P/1(e), P/1 (f) in which petitioners have challenged the recovery intended to be made against them on the pretext that they are not entitled for grant of benefit of two advance increments on acquisition of qualification of D.Ed./BTI on their own cost. Through, the recovery order, impliedly benefits given earlier vide order dated 08.01.2004 in W.P.(s) No.19/2004 (Surendra Singh tomar Vs. State of M.P. & Others (Annexure P/5) and order dated 13.01.2006 passed in W.P. (s) No.1835/2005 (Prem Narayan Sharma Vs. State of M.P.) have been withdrawn.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner informed this Court that petitioner No.5 Smt. Sahashi Kala Tomar was not the part of petition as referred above but she is agitating the case on the strength of the fact that similarly situated persons have been awarded the benefit of two advance increments on acquisition of qualification of D.Ed./BTI, therefore, leaving her out from the benefits of two advance 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP.No.10540/2020 (S) (Sagar Singh Sen and Others Vs. State of M.P. & Others) increments is arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, he fairly submitted that she cannot agitate her case on the strength of order passed by this Court from time to time but she would agitate her case independently.
3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that State Government came out with policy of grant of two advance increments to those teachers who made an attempt to attain qualification of B.Ed/BTI on their own cost and to promote higher study in teaching staff, this incentive was given by the State Government from time to time. Since present petitioners (except petitioner No.5 Smt. Shashi Kala Tomar) attained qualification of B.Ed./BTI from their personal expenses and did not get the benefit, therefore, filed Writ Petition No.19/2004 and W.P.(s) No.1835/2005 (Prem Narain Sharma, petitioner No.6, herein) in which vide order dated 08.01.2004 (in W.P.No.19/2004) and order dated 13.01.2006 (in W.P.(s) No.1835/2005) order was passed in which direction was given to the State Government to grant benefit of two advance increments to the petitioners as has been done in other identical cases as referred by the petitioners in the said petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that after grant of benefit as given by this Court, they enjoyed two advance increments till impugned order is passed. After almost 15 years, respondents realized that petitioners were given two advance increments 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP.No.10540/2020 (S) (Sagar Singh Sen and Others Vs. State of M.P. & Others) erroneously because they were not entitled to get benefit because of cut of date dated 16.05.1993.
5. Although vide Circular dated 24.12.1998 it has been clarified that after 22.10.1964 only those teachers would get benefit of two advance increments who have done B.Ed./BTI from their personal expenses. Since the petitioners attained qualification of D.Ed./B.Ed./BTI from their personal expenses, therefore, they preferred a petition as referred above, in which benefit was directed to be given. Now, the respondents intend to retract the benefit given earlier by way of initiating recovery proceedings against the petitioners that too after lapse of 15 years.
6. It is submitted that if respondents were aggrieved by the order by which benefits were directed to be extended by this Court, then they were at liberty to move in LPA (Writ Appeal) or approach the Apex Court but respondents did not prefer to do so and complied the order passed by this Court. Now after 15 years, they are trying to reopen the case on administrative side while initiating recovery proceedings. The same is arbitrary and illegal.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents/State referred the circular dated 26.07.2003 (Annexure R/1) and submitted that cut-of-date in the said circular is provided as 16.05.1993 meaning thereby those teachers who were appointed to this date and attained qualifications of 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP.No.10540/2020 (S) (Sagar Singh Sen and Others Vs. State of M.P. & Others) B.Ed./BTI before that date were entitled for benefits of two advance increments and not otherwise. Appointment of petitioners is dated 11.02.1994, therefore, they moved beyond cut-of-date. Therefore, they were not entitled for the benefits and no sooner this fact came to the knowledge of the respondents, impugned order has been passed.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.
9. This is the case where petitioners were appointed on 11.02.1994 and thereafter they attained qualifications of B.Ed/BTI on their personal expenses and relying upon the circular dated 24 th December, 1998 (Annexure P/4B) they moved by way of writ petition before this Court as W.P.No.19/2004 and W.P.(s) No.1835/2005 in which directions were given in categorical terms by the Coordinate Bench and respondents were directed to grant benefit of two advance increments to the petitioners also as has been done in all other identical cases. When this direction was given to grant the benefit to the petitioners then respondents could have filed LPA/Writ Appeal challenging the said order but instead of challenging it, respondents complied the order in all identical cases.
10. Resultantly, the benefits were being enjoyed by the petitioners for last 15 years. At the fag end of their career, recovery orders have been issued by the respondents which is not permissible in law. Even 5 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP.No.10540/2020 (S) (Sagar Singh Sen and Others Vs. State of M.P. & Others) otherwise Circular dated 24th December, 1998 (Annexure P/4B) contemplates grant of two advance increments to those teachers who attained the qualification of B.Ed./BTI from their personal expenses. Therefore, cumulatively at this stage recovery order appears to be arbitrary and illegal.
11. In many other similar matters, like W.P.No.18730/2018 (Jaswant Singh Dhakad & Others Vs. State of M.P. & Others) this Court vide order dated 26.06.2021 relying upon the earlier order dated 18.04.2007 passed in W.P.No.7355/2011 (Ashok Kumar Dixit Vs. State of M.P.) and order dated 30.07.2018 in W.P.No.7336/2011 (Dewaki Nandan Soni Vs. State of M.P.) passed the order and quashed recovery.
12. This Court intends to tread on the same path. Resultantly, the impugned orders dated 03.07.2020 [Annexure P/1 (colly)] (Annexures P/1(a), P/1(b), P/1(c), P/1(d), P/1(e) and P/1(f)) are hereby quashed so far as the petitioner No.1 Sagar Singh Sen, petitioner No.2 Surendra Singh Tomar, petitioner No.3 Sundar Lal Vishwakarma, petitioner No.4 Arjun Singh Yadav and petitioner No.6 Prem Narain Sharma are concerned.
13. So far as the petitioner No.5 Smt. Shashi Kala Tomar is concerned, her case although appears to be on same footing but she did not prefer any petition at the relevant point of time when other 6 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP.No.10540/2020 (S) (Sagar Singh Sen and Others Vs. State of M.P. & Others) petitioners preferred, therefore they are insulated with order passed by this Court whereas petitioner No.5 is not. Therefore, in the fitness of things, while keeping the recovery against petitioner No.5 Smt. Shashi Kala Tomar in abeyance, her matter is remanded back to the respondents for reconsideration in the light of the benefits granted to other similarly placed employees. If respondents ultimately come to the conclusion that her case stands at par with other employees then the same benefit be given to her. In that condition, it is expected from the respondents that recovery orders may be recalled. In case, respondents conclude otherwise then they shall pass a reasoned order indicating the reasons for rejection of benefit to the petitioner No.5 Smt. Shashi Kala Tomar and thereafter, they may ensure recovery in accordance with law.
14. With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands allowed in part and disposed of in above terms.
(Anand Pathak)
AK/- Judge
ANAND KUMAR
2022.03.25
18:56:38 +05'30'