Dr. S.S.Nayak vs Mpseb, Jabalpur And Ors.
2021 Latest Caselaw 6782 MP

                                                                        1                              WP-6455-2002
                                             The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                        WP-6455-2002
                                                         (DR. S.S.NAYAK Vs MPSEB, JABALPUR AND ORS.)

                                   3
                                   Jabalpur, Dated : 25-10-2021
                                         Shri R.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner.
                                         Shri H.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent.

Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved of the action of the respondents in rejecting claim of the petitioner for grant of two advance increments vide order dated 08.10.1996, issued by the Joint Secretary,

Personnel Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, on the ground that petitioner is entitled for grant of two advance increments on the basis of order dated 06.06.1980 issued by Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board wherein it is provided as under:-

" The Board is pleased to grant two advance increments to the staff/officers who possess at the time of their appointment or acquire subsequently a Doctorate degree such as PhD, D.SC, D phil, D Lit. etc, provided the subject is related to activities of the Board on which they are employed. "

It is submitted that petitioner obtained PhD in a subject "Grameen Vidyutiyakaran Yojna Ki Pragati Avm Uski Uplabdhiyan Ek Addhyan" as has been notified by the Registrar of Avdhesh Pratap Singh University, Rewa vide notification dated 25.02.1993.

Shri Sahu has placed reliance on two decisions of Coordinate Benches respectively passed in WP No. 5000/1997 dated 31.10.2006 so also in case of Dr. Navneet Bhagat WP(s) No. 2665/2003 decided on 23.11.2010 and seeking parity with the said judgments, it is submitted that petitioner's case is squarely covered. He is also entitled for grant of similar benefit of two advance increments subsequent to his attaining a degree of Doctorate in Philosophy.

Signature Not Verified SAN Shri H.K. Upadhyay, in his turn submits that two conditions are

Digitally signed by VARSHA DUBEY Date: 2021.10.28 12:25:07 IST 2 WP-6455-2002 required to be fulfilled before any advance increments can be granted to the staff/officers, viz the subject is related to the activities of the Board and secondly they should be related to the field on which a person seeking such increments is employed. It is submitted that there is non-consideration of second condition in both the judgments cited by Shri Sahu in his favour.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the

record, it is evident and admitted that petitioner was appointed as LDC(Assistant Grade-III).

Shri Sahu submits that petitioner was initially appointed as LDC and later on he is not aware as to whether he has been promoted as Hindi Translator or not.

However, the fact of the matter is that work of a LDC or a Translator is not to render any technical assistance and therefore, the subject of PhD namely progress of Rural Electrification Scheme and its achievements, is not related to the work of a LDC which has to necessarily discharge ministerial function and is not a part of the policy making apparatus of the board. It is true that subject of the PhD is related to the activities of the Board and this fact cannot be disputed but in absence of second condition being fulfilled i.e. the activity should be related to the field on which a person claiming advance increments is employed is since not fulfilled and evidently this aspect has not been considered by the coordinate Benches while deciding WP No. 5000/1997 and WP(s) 2665/2003, they are distinguishable on their own facts and no parity can be claimed on the basis of said judgments.

Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, when tested on the anvil of the policy which specifically provides two conditions namely the subject of Doctorate should be related to the activities of the Board and that activity should be in turn co-relatable to the field on which a person seeking such two advance increments in employed; since second condition is not fulfilled, in opinion of this court, impugned order rejecting petitioner's representation for grant of advance increments cannot be faulted with therefore, petition fails Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by VARSHA DUBEY Date: 2021.10.28 12:25:07 IST 3 WP-6455-2002 and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE

VD

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by VARSHA DUBEY Date: 2021.10.28 12:25:07 IST