Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jivendra Singh Parihar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 June, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26093
1 WP-11005-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 18th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 11005 of 2012
JIVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Dr. R.B. Dubey - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Varun Jain - Panel Lawyer for the State.
ORDER
The counsel for the petitioner submits, that the petitioner by way of
this petition, has prayed for issuance of directions to the respondents to
extend the benefit of two annual increments. It is contended by the counsel
that the petitioner had obtained two advance increments as incentive, on
obtaining B.Ed. Degree, and the same does not form a part of the pay-scale.
Therefore, merger of increments with the pay-scale is illegal, unsustainable
and prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. Accordingly, it is contended
by the counsel for the petitioner that in view of the G.A.D. Circular dated 14-
09-2006, if an employee concerned approaches the Court for redressal of his
grievance regarding Family Planning incentive, the same shall be treated as
per personal pay, and shall not be treated to be merged in the revision of pay-
scale.
2. Accordingly, it is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that
applying the same principle, the benefits which were extended to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26093
2 WP-11005-2012
petitioner after obtaining the B.Ed. Degree be also considered as personal
pay incentive.
3. Per contra, the counsel for the State opposed the prayer and
submitted that an identical issue has already been dealt with by this Court in
the case of State of M.P. and others vs. R.K. Chaturvedi, 2006 (2) MPLJ
374, wherein it has been observed that an employee cannot claim any further
benefit of advance increments in the event of his promotion or in the event
of payment of higher pay-scale. It is also contended by the counsel that the
said judgment has been further relied upon by a Division Bench of the High
Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in the case of Registrar General, High
Court of Chhattisgarh vs. Fanendra Kumar Bisen and others (W.A. No.479 of
2024, decided on 07-08-2024). Thus, it is contended by the counsel that the
issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the aforesaid
decisions.
4. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the
parties, this Court find force in the argument of the State, that the issue in the
present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions.
5. This Court in R.K. Chaturvedi (supra) in paragraph Nos.4,9 and 12
held as under :
"4. Before the Division Bench which was hearing the writ petition,
a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Vijaya Kothalkar v.
State of M.P. and Ors.s, 2001(5) M.P.H.T. 295 (DB) = 2001(3)
MPLJ 469, was cited on behalf of the respondent No. 1 in which it
was held that at the time of fixing pay in the revised scale due
weightage has to be given to the increments already acquired by
incumbent and if that is not done, it would tantamount to denying
the benefit which has been acquired by the incumbent to his
prejudice. Before the Division Bench hearing the writ petition,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26093
3 WP-11005-2012
another Division Bench judgment in State of M.P. v. D.D. Dekhne
and Ors.s, in W.P. No. 2036/02 was cited on behalf of the
petitioners in which it was held that two advance increments were
given as benefit qua particular pay-scale and it can not be said that
a person who has been given a benefit qua particular pay-scale
would avail the said benefit whenever there would be revision of
pay-scale. In view of these conflicting opinions of two Division
Benches of this Court, the Division Bench has referred the
following question of law to the Full Bench:
"Whether in the event of promotion or payment of
higher pay-scale, employee is entitled for benefit of
advance increments paid in previous scale of pay or
cadre ?"
xxx xxx xxx
9. Rule 27 of the M.P. Fundamental Rules provides that an
Appointing Authority may grant a pre-mature increment to a
Government servant on time scale of pay, subject to general or
special order issued by the Government. It is under this Rule 27 of
the M.P. Fundamental Rules that the Government of Madhya
Pradesh issued the circular dated 29-1-1979 granting two advance
increments to a Government servant on time scale of pay for
Family Planning Operations, such advance increments granted
under the said circular dated 29-1-1979 are additional pay granted
to a Government servant and the consideration for granting such
additional pay is personal to him i.e., the Family Planning
Operation undergone by him or his wife. These advanced
increments therefore constitute "personal pay" as defined in Rule
9. (23) of the M.P. Fundamental Rules quoted hereinbelow:
(23) "PersonalPay" means an additional pay granted to
a Government servant--
(a) to save him from a loss of substantive pay in respect
of a permanent post other than a tenure post due to a
revision of pay or to any reduction of such substantive
pay otherwise than as a disciplinary measure; or
(b) in exceptional circumstances, on other personal
considerations.
The aforesaid definition of 'Personal Pay' also makes it
clear that it is an additional pay granted to a
Government servant to save him from a loss of
substantive pay due to revision of pay. Hence, at the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26093
4 WP-11005-2012
time of revision of pay he can not suffer loss of such
advance increments granted to him.
xxx xxx xxx
12. In the result, our answer to the question referred to us by the
Division Bench is that an employee whose pay is revised w.e.f. 1-
1-1986 in accordance with Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the M.P.
Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 automatically gets the benefit of the
advance increments given to him for Family Planning Operations
under the Circular dated 29-1-1979 and once his revised scale of
pay is fixed in accordance with the said provisions of Sub-rule (1)
of Rule 7 of the M.P Revision of Pay Rules, 1990, he can not
claim any further benefit of advance increments in the event of his
promotion or in the event of payment o£ higher pay-scale."
6. In view of the aforesaid, the prayer so made by the petitioner in the
present writ petition, cannot be acceded to. Accordingly, the same stands
dismissed without any order as to costs.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
ac
