Madhuri Bhardwaj vs State of Madhya Pradesh

S.K. Gangele, J.—The petitioners have filed this petition against the order dated 30.7.08 (Annexure P/1). They further prayed a relief that they would be granted promotion in pursuance to the order Annexure P/1 to the Post of Personal Secretary to Vice Chancellor. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Steno-typist on 7.2.98 in Directorate of Technical Education. She was posted in M.P. Technical Education Board on 16.7.96. Petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Stenographer on 23.12.96 in M.P. Technical Education Board.

Vide order dated 8.5.2001, the Technical Education Board was abolished and the Employees and Officers working on the posts were merged in Rajiv Gandhi Prodyogiki Vishwavidyalay. An order in this regard was passed on 18.10.2001 (Annexure P/2). The services of the petitioners were also transferred to the University. The next promotional post from the post of Steno-typist is Personal Secretary. The University considered the cases of employees for promotion to the post of Personal Secretary in the Pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/-. Both the petitioners were found fit for promotion. They were placed at S. No. 1 and 2 in the order Annexure P/1. The petitioners were directed to submit their options that whether they would like to accept the promotion. It was further clarified to them that if they would accept the promotion then they would have to forgo the benefits which they had opted earlier in accordance with the provisions of M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976. The petitioners, vide letter dated 1.8.08 (Annexure P/6) informed the University that earlier they had submitted the options that they would opt the pensionary benefit which was available to a Government employee under the Government service, hence the petitioners were not promoted to the promotional post and other two persons, respondents No. 5 and 6 were promoted.

In this petition, it is pleaded by the petitioners that non-promotion of the petitioners is arbitrary and illegal. When petitioners became an employee of the University, they are eligible to get promotion at par with the employees of the University.

The respondents No. 3 and 4/University in its reply pleaded that at the time of absorption of the petitioners in the University, an option was called from the petitioners that whether they want to opt service conditions of the University or they want to retain the pensionary benefits which are applicable to the Government employees. The petitioners opted for pensionary benefits which were available to the Government employees in accordance with the M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976. The posts, on which promotions were made, were created by the University on its own financial resources. The aforesaid posts did not carry the pensionary benefits. Because the petitioners accepted the pensionary benefits, hence they were not promoted to the posts which did not carry the pensionary benefits.

The Government, vide letter dated 20.7.09 filed along with the return of respondents No. 5 and 6 also clarified that the posts were created by the University on its own financial resources and the employees working on such posts would not be eligible to get pension, hence those employees who had already given option to receive pension, would not be eligible for promotion on the aforesaid posts. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the posts on which petitioners want promotion do not carry the pensionary benefit. The petitioners have already submitted their options that they would like to retain the benefit of pension which is available to the State Government Employees under M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976. After order of promotion, the petitioners were further directed to opt for the option. The petitioners clearly stated in the letter 1.8.08 (Annex.P/6) that they would retain the option of getting pension in accordance with the State Government Employees.

In the aforesaid circumstances, in my opinion, non-promotion of the petitioners is not arbitrary and illegal. I do not find any merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed.