JUDGMENT : (Arvind Kumar Verma, J.) 1. The challenge in the instant petition is to order dated 30/01/2019, whereby the claim of the petitioner for continuance of two advance increments has been closed. 2. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- Relief sought: 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 30/01/2019 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 3 and the order dated 28/12/2018 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent No.1. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to respondent authorities to refixed the pay scale of the petitioner after adding two advance increments in the newly fixed pay scale of the petitioner and the petitioner may kindly be paid his salary accordingly from 19/01/2005 onward and further the benefit of two advance increments should be given to the petitioner on the revision of his future pay scale. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate. 3. Facts of the case in the nutshell are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Grade-III vide order dated 24.01.1992. The wife of the petitioner had undergone family planning operation (Tubectomy) on 29.07.1999. On account of the family planning operation the benefit of two advance increments has been granted to the petitioner vide order dated 23.08.1999. The petitioner got the above benefit till December, 2004. Subsequently vide order dated 19.01.2005, the petitioner promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs. 4000- 100-6000, but the benefit of advance increment was not extended to the petitioner. Even vide order dated 28.12.2005 while the pay scale of the petitioner has been fixed, but the above benefit of two advance increments on account of family planning operation has not been granted and as such petitioner not getting the benefit of advance increments. The petitioner made a representation on 18.09.2018 before the respondent No. 3 for continuance of the above two advance increments, which has been disposed by the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 30.01.2019 giving the reference of order dated 28.12.2018 passed by Law Department. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:- 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of respondents are unconstitutional, discriminatory and not sustainable in the eye of law. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:- 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of respondents are unconstitutional, discriminatory and not sustainable in the eye of law. Relying the order passed in the matter of A.K. Kesharwani v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others passed in WPS No. 4486/2005 dated 09/03/2010, he submits that the above issue has already been settled by the Hon’ble High Court, but instead thereof, the respondents have denied to grant the benefit of advance increments to the petitioner. He further submits that the advance increment granted to the petitioner cannot be classified as personal pay granted to the petitioner under any of the circumstances enumerated in clause-9 (23) (a) & (b) of the Fundamental Rules. 5. Ex-adverso counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 submits that by virtue of family planning operation of petitioner's wife, the benefit of two advance increments was already extended to the petitioner vide order dated 23.08.1999. The grievance of the petitioner that the said benefit is not extended continuously is without substance, because, as per the rules such benefit of two advance increment has to be extended in the pay scale till further revision of the pay. It is further submitted that there is no provision in the rules to continue such benefit. Intimation received (Annexure P/2) reads as under:- ^^izksRlkgu Lo:i nh tkus okyh vfxze osruo`f) dk YkkHk] dsoy izpfyr osrueku esa osru dk vkxkeh iqufuZ/kkj.k gksus rd gh izkIr gksrk gSA pwafd vfxze osruo`f) dk YkkHk fujarj fn;s tkus ds laca/k esa fu;eksa esa dksbZ izko/kku ugha gSA vr% iz'kkldh; foHkkx ds izLrko ij vlgefr O;Dr dh tkrh gSA^^ He submits that there is no illegality or infirmity on the part of the respondent. The petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. The petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 submits that the claim of the petitioner with regard to continuance of two additional increments which were earlier granted to the petitioner after Family Planning (Tubectomy) operation on 29.07.1999 under the Government Policy, after promotion of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Grade- II, is not permissible as admittedly, the petitioner was granted the benefit of two advance increments upon Family Planning (Tubectomy) operation under the Government Policy w.e.f. 29.07.1999, vide order dated 23.08.1999 pursuant to the circular dated 29.01.1979 issued by the GAD, the then Govt. of MP, as such, the petitioner was already granted the benefit of two advance increments, w.e.f. 29.07.1999, therefore, he is not entitled for any further advance increment on the basis of Family Planning operation under the Circular dated 29.01.1979. Pertinently to further mention here that pursuant to the memo issued by the respondent High Court vide dated 30/08/2018 concerned Department of respondent State Government vide its letter/memo dated 28/12/2018, has communication to the respondent High Court that as per information/opinion given by the GAD, GoCG, the benefit advance increment which has been granted as encouragement will be available only on the prevailing scale till next revision of pay-scale. Further, since there is no provision of continuing the benefit of advance increment under the Rules in this regard, therefore, the proposal Administrative Department was disapproved. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was granted advance increment vide order dated 23/08/1999 on account of the petitioner’s wife undergone the family planning operation (Tubectomy) on 29/07/1999, and the benefit of advance increments continued till December, 2004. It is also an admitted position that vide order dated 19/01/2005 when the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-100-60000, the benefit of advance increments was not extended to him. Subsequently, the petitioner moved a representation on 18/09/2018 before respondent No.3 for continuance of the above two advance increments which was disposed of by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 30/01/2019 in light of the reference dated 28/12/2018 passed by the Law Department. 9. 4000-100-60000, the benefit of advance increments was not extended to him. Subsequently, the petitioner moved a representation on 18/09/2018 before respondent No.3 for continuance of the above two advance increments which was disposed of by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 30/01/2019 in light of the reference dated 28/12/2018 passed by the Law Department. 9. The contention of the petitioner is that the above issue has been settled by the Hon’ble Court in WP(S) No. 4486/2005, A.K. Kesharwani v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, whereby this Court allowed the writ petition holding that the advance increment granted to the petitioner cannot be classified as personal pay granted to the petitioner under any of the circumstances enumerated in clause-9 (23) (a) & (b) of the Fundamental Rules. 10. Relevant paragraph of the said order passed in in WP(S) No. 4486/2005, A.K. Kesharwani v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others is as under:- “(9) In view of the matter, I am unable to uphold contention of learned State counsel that advance increment granted to the petitioner has to be treated as personal pay. Respondents could not bring to the notice of this Court any provision either contained in Revision of Pay Rules, 1998 or any other government circular/guidelines/instructions/notification so as to exclude advance increment while computing basic pay in the matter of revision of pay scale under the provisions of Rule 7 & 8 of the said rules. In the absence of that, it is difficult for this Court to hold that while making fixation in the revised pay scale w.e.f. 01/01/1996, advance increment earlier earned by the petitioner was liable to be ignored. (10) Even otherwise, I do not find any justification or legal basis for not including advance increment which the petitioner was getting at the time of revision of pay in the revised pay scale. In the case of Dr. Smt. Vijaya Kothalkar, Ujjain (supra), the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dealt with the same situation held as under:- 8. It is a settled law that at the time of fixing pay in revision due weightage has to given to the increments already acquired by the Incumbent and keeping in view that the pay-scale in the revised scale has to be fixed. If that is not done, it would tantamount to denying the benefit, which has been acquired by the incumbent to his prejudice. If that is not done, it would tantamount to denying the benefit, which has been acquired by the incumbent to his prejudice. In view of that. benefit was given to G.S. Tomar and Diwakar Kothalkar. It has been pointed out by the SAT itself in Its judgment in Para 11 that G.S.Tomar was entitled to get such revised pay-scale keeping in view the fact that he had already acquired two increments. It further noted that the said grant was withdrawn and, therefore, that was to be restored and that was so done, there was no point in denying that benefit to the petitioner, but pointing out something which was not consistent with the material on record, the SAT committed an error in brushing aside the contentions of the petitioner by distinguishing the case of Diwakar Kothalkar by saying that the facts of the said case were not before it. 9. An employee, who has been given advance increments has been put to higher ladder of the stair-case can not be put to his prejudice because that would be causing all senior hardship to his because what he had acquired would be withdrawn without there being any fault on his part. Secondly. that would also be creating a quantic situation in the cadre because by such an action he would be brought to par with his juniors or may be keeping up else than his juniors. Therefore, the fact that the employee has acquired the increments and was getting the pay at higher rate can not be either withdrawn, reduced or can not be denied to him. It can not be ignored also. The payscale has to be fixed in view of the revision of the payscale properly and by giving due weightage to the standing of the person in the cadre. (11) In view of above, it is held that the action of the respondents in ignoring advance increment granted to the petitioner under family planning and incentive for the purpose of fixing pay in the revised pay scale w.e.f. 01/01/1996 was illegal. Respondents shall now make fixation of petitioner's pay by taking into consideration the advance increment earned earlier by the petitioner. Respondents shall also pay arrears, if any, payable to the petitioner consequent upon such fixation of pay and other consequential benefits. 11. Respondents shall now make fixation of petitioner's pay by taking into consideration the advance increment earned earlier by the petitioner. Respondents shall also pay arrears, if any, payable to the petitioner consequent upon such fixation of pay and other consequential benefits. 11. In the above case, it has been held by the Court that since respondents could not bring to the notice of this Court any provision either contained in Revision of Pay Rules, 1998 or any other government circular/guidelines/instructions/notification so as to exclude advance increment while computing basic pay in the matter of revision of pay scale under the provisions of Rule 7 & 8 of the said rules, thus, it was difficult for the Court to hold that while making fixation in the revised pay scale w.e.f. 01/01/1996, advance increment earlier earned by the petitioner was liable to be ignored. 12. In the instant case, as per order of the Court, learned State counsel was directed to file an affidavit whether two advance increments granted to the persons who have undergone family planning operation will be treated as special pay or not and whether any pay scale has been provided under the rules for those persons who/his/her spouse have been undergone for family planning operation. In compliance thereof, an affidavit of Mr. S.S. Dubey, Joint Collector, District Bilaspur was filed which annexed a memo issued by the General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, which reads as under:- 13. On perusal of the above memo, it is apparent that the Green Card Scheme implemented by the Public Health and Family Welfare Department in undivided Madhya Pradesh from 26/04/1985 in this state, vide circular number F-1-45/2014/nine/17-1, dated 30/07/2014 of the Health and Family Welfare Department has been stopped with immediate effect. 14. The above memo further reveals that in continuation of the above, circular number F 6-1/2002/1-3 issued by the General Administration Department regarding increments given as incentive to government servants for getting themselves or their spouse sterilized under the Family Welfare Programme, dated 18/09/2002 has been canceled with immediate effect. 15. 14. The above memo further reveals that in continuation of the above, circular number F 6-1/2002/1-3 issued by the General Administration Department regarding increments given as incentive to government servants for getting themselves or their spouse sterilized under the Family Welfare Programme, dated 18/09/2002 has been canceled with immediate effect. 15. After going through the above factual scenario of the matter, it is quite vivid that since there was no provision either contained in Revision of Pay Rules, 1998 or any other government circular/guidelines/ instructions/notification so as to exclude advance increment while computing basic pay in the matter of revision of pay scale under the provisions of Rule 7 & 8 of the said rules, therefore, the Court vide its order dated 09/03/2010 passed in WP (S) No. 4486/2005 had directed to the respondents to make fixation of petitioner’s (therein) pay by taking into consideration the advance increment earned earlier by him. It was also directed the Respondents to pay arrears, if any, payable to him consequent upon such fixation of pay and other consequential benefits. 16. In case in hand, the Government of Chhattisgarh vide its memo dated 07/10/2015 issued instructions for stoppage of the benefit of advance increments to government servants for getting themselves or their spouse sterilized under the Family Welfare Programme. Meaning thereby, till the year 2015, there was no circular/ guidelines/ instructions/ notification for deprivation of advance increments to the petitioner on account of family planning operation undergone by petitioner’s wife, while the benefit of advance increments to the petitioner has only been extended till December, 2004, which in the opinion of this Court, should have been extended till 07/10/2015. 17. Considering the above facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner undoubtedly is liable to get benefit of two advance increments till 07/10/2015 when memo for stoppage of benefit of advance increments to governments servants was issued by the State Government. 18. Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to make fixation of petitioner’s pay by taking into consideration the advance increments earned earlier by him till 07/10/2015. Respondents shall also pay arrears, if any, payable to him consequent upon such fixation of pay and other consequential benefits. 19. Consequently, the petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.