Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Ram Swarupi Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 March, 2022
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP.No.612/2022
(Smt. Ram Swarupi Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Others)
Gwalior Bench : Dated : 22.03.2022
Shri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri G.K.Agrawal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/
State.
With the consent of parties, the matter is finally heard. Instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
"(1). Quash the impugned note/audit objection made in service book.
(2). The respondents may kindly be directed to continue the benefit of two advance increments which has been extended to the petitioner in compliance of the orders of Court. (3). The respondents may kindly be further directed to start pension forthwith and made the entire arrears alongwith interest @ 12% p.a.. (4). Cost may also be awarded on delay payment of pension.
(5). To pass such other further order (s) deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."
2. In short, petitioner is challenging intended recovery to be made against her on the pretext that she is not entitled for grant of benefit of two advance increments on acquisition of qualification of D.Ed/BTI on her own cost. It is further submitted that petitioner was initially appointed as Lower Division Teacher and has passed Diploma in 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP.No.612/2022 (Smt. Ram Swarupi Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Others) Education course with prior permission from the department in 1997. The State Govt. issued Circular dated 24.12.1998 in view of order passed by the Apex Court, thereby it was mentioned that all the teachers, who have passed D.Ed./BTI at their own cost, after 20.10.1964, would get benefit of two advance increments who have done B.Ed./BTI from their personal expenses. In view of above, for claiming two advance increments, petitioner filed W.P.(s) No.985/2004 (Krishan Gopal & Others Vs. State of M.P. & Others) before the Court, wherein name of petitioner appeared at Serial No.3 and the said petition was allowed vide order dated 21.06.2004 with the following directions:-
"Considering the aforesaid, petitions are allowed. Respondents are directed to grant benefits of two advance increments to the petitioners also as has been done in all other identical cases. It is directed that the benefits be give to the petitioners and fixation of their pay shall be done within three months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order."
3. As submitted, in compliance of order of the Court, respondents extended benefits of two advance increments w.e.f. 01.12.1997 and made the entries in her service book and such entries and fixation of pay was approved by the respondent No.3 in the year of 1998 but at the time of fixation under M.P. Pay Revision Rules, 2009, audit team of 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP.No.612/2022 (Smt. Ram Swarupi Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Others) respondent No.3 made objection regarding extending benefit of two increments and ordered for recovery from 01.12.1997 on the ground that petitioner has passed D.Ed., but the said objection was made in service book and said fixation was never communicated to the petitioner and now vide impugned orders, respondents' department asked petitioner to deposit such amount. On such audit objection, respondents have not yet started even anticipatory pension, while she retired on 28.12.2019.
4. Even otherwise, Circular dated 24th December, 1998 (Annexure P/4B) contemplated 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. In similar many other 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.
5. In sum and substance, petitioner is aggrieved by action of the respondents whereby audit objection has been raised regarding two advance increments, therefore recovery is intended to be made. She 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP.No.612/2022 (Smt. Ram Swarupi Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Others) seeks parity vis-a-vis order dated 22.03.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.(s) No.10540/2020 (Sagar Singh Sen & Others Vs. State of M.P. & Others) which is being heard analogously with this petition and detailed order has been passed in the said case. She seeks parity vis-a- vis the said order.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the prayer on the basis of reply filed in W.P.(s) No.10540/2020 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 B.Ed./BTI before that date were entitled for benefits of two advance increments and not otherwise.
7. Heard.
8. As the detailed order has been passed by this Court in W.P.No. 10540/2020 (Sagar Singh Sen & Others Vs. State of M.P. & Others) vide order dated 22.03.2022, the same will govern fate of present case also and in view of the order dated 22.03.2022 passed in W.P.No. 10540/2020, the orders impugned for recovery are quashed.
9. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
(Anand Pathak)
AK/- Judge
ANAND KUMAR
2022.03.25 18:59:22
+05'30'