Ashok Kumar Gupta vs State of M.P. and others

Hon''ble Shri Justice Sujoy Paul

The singular question involved in this writ petition is whether Annexure-P/1, whereby petitioner''s pay was re-fixed is legal and justified? The petitioner was working as Cooperative Inspector in the pay-scale of 4500 - 7000. The petitioner was given financial up-gradation/kramonnati vide Annexure-P/2 in the pay-scale of 5000 - 8000. Thereafter, petitioner was regularly promoted as Senior Cooperative Inspector vide Annexure-P/4 in the pay-scale of 5500 - 9000. The petitioner was given this pay-scale, but thereafter pursuant to Annexure-P/1 his pay was reduced. This Annexure-P/1 is called in question by the petitioner in the present petition.

The singular reason assigned in Annexure-P/1 to reduce and to re-fix petitioner''s pay is GDA Circular dated 17/03/1999. The said circular placed on record as Annexure-P/3. The relevant portion of the said circular, which is made applicable while issuing Annexure-P/1 reads as under:

(Emphasis Supplied)

The only question is whether this provision can be pressed into service to the detriment of the petitioner for the purposes of reducing his pay-scale or for the purpose of re-fixing his pay.

Shri Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said circular has no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Per Contra, Ms. Patankar supported the order Annexure-P/1.

In the opinion of this Court, petitioner was given kramonnati while working as Cooperative Inspector (4500 - 7000) to 5000 - 8000 kramonnati scale. The regular promotion was given to the petitioner to the post of Senior Cooperative Inspector vide Annexure-P/4 in the scale of 5500 - 9000. The aforesaid clause shows that if petitioner, who was given benefit of "kramonnati" is promoted in the "same pay-scale", his pay would be fixed as if he is continuing in the earlier pay-scale. In the present case, admittedly, petitioner is not promoted "in the same pay-scale". The petitioner is promoted on a higher pay-scale. Thus, aforesaid clause has no application and the respondents have erroneously applied said clause to the detriment of the petitioner thereby reducing and re-fixing his pay. In the considered opinion of this Court, on promotion, the petitioner enjoyed a higher pay-scale than the scale he was enjoying while getting benefit of kramonnati. Thus, very foundation on the strength of which Annexure-P/1 was passed cannot be made applicable and, therefore, the impugned order Annexure-P/1 cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. In the result, Annexure-P/1 is passed by applying Annexure-P/3 in correctly and therefore, the said order is bad-in-law and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, Annexure-P/1 is set aside and the pay-scale of the petitioner is restored, which he was enjoying before issuance of Annexure-P/1. The petitioner shall get all consequential benefits arising thereto. The respondents shall complete the exercise of recalculation and pay arrears to the petitioner within three months positively, failing which it will carry interest @ 6% p.a. Petition is allowed. No costs.