AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:-
"7.1That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records of the case.
7.2That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents for compliance of the order dated 27.04.2013 passed in W.P. No. 15441/2005 by the Hon'ble Member of the Lok Adalat.
7.3Any other relief or direction or order deems fit in the circumstances of the case may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner alongwith cost of this petition.
7.4This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 11.12.2014 (P/5)/R/1 passed by the respondent No.2 and direct the respondents to provide the benefit of second kramonnati to the petitioner w.e.f. 31.07.1998 with 12% interest per annum, in the interest of justice.
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk on 04.02.1966. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted from the the post of LDC to the post of UDC vide order dated 09.05.1977 in the pay scale of Rs. 195-330. Thereafter, the petitioner was again promoted from the post of UDC to the post of Accountant vide order dated 31.07.1998, however, the petitioner has not been given any advancement of the salary but a special pay of Rs.250/- was added to his pay scale because the petitioner was getting the same pay scale as of the promotional post by granting benefit of Rule 22-D of the Fundamental Rules.
It is submitted that the petitioner sought benefit of second Kramonnati/advancement of pay on the basis of the policy dated 17th March, 1999. The said benefit was though extended vide order dated 19.04.1999, however, the same was withdrawn vide order dated 8th November, 2005. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in WP No. 15441/2005 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 27.04.2013 with a direction that the withdrawal of the benefit shall be considered in the light of the decision rendered in the case of Smt. Prerna w/o Shri Pramod Koranne Vs. State of M.P. and others-WP No. 6773/06 decided on 26.04.2007 and other similar cases. The authority vide order dated 11.12.2014 (Annexure R/1) has decided the claim of the petitioner and maintained the order of withdrawal dated 8th November, 2005. It is found by the authority that the petitioner is not entitled for second kramonnati as per the policy dated 19.04.1999.
It is submitted that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected and withdrawn only on the ground that as per Clauses 2(b) and (a) of the policy, the entitlement to an employee arises only when employee is not promoted/given advancement/increment. Clause 2(b) of the policy provides that during 24 years of service tenure if the employee has not been extended one or more advance pay scale then only the employee would be entitled for the said benefit. In the case of the petitioner, as he was promoted in the year 1977 and the promotional pay scale was extended to the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner was again promoted to the post of Accountant by granting Rs.250/- special enhancement of pay, the petitioner has not been found entitled for the benefit of second kramonnati.
It is submitted that the view taken by the authority is against the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.252/2013-Daulat Ram Rajak vs. State of M.P. decided vide order dated 10.09.2013. It is submitted that in identical facts and circumstances of the case, the Court has interpreted Clause 2(b) of the policy of 1999 and found that even if the person is promoted to a higher post but has not been extended the benefit of higher pay scale then it would be treated that the person is stagnated on the same pay scale as it was granted with first promotion and therefore, prayed that the impugned actions and orders dated 8th November, 2005 and 11.12.2014 (Annexure R/1) deserve to be quashed.
Per contra, counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer on the ground that from a plain reading of the policy it is clear that if the employee is stagnated on a particular pay scale during 24 years of tenure of service then only second advancement of pay scale can be extended on the basis of the policy. It is submitted that if the employee has been extended the benefit of advancement of pay scale/increment or promotion during such period then such benefit is not accrued to the employee. As the petitioner has been promoted to the post of UDC in the year 1977 and thereafter to the post of Accountant in the year 1998, the petitioner is not entitled for any further advancement of the scale in the light of Clause 2(b) of the policy of the year 1999 and submitted that the order passed by the authority taking into consideration the promotional benefits, which was given to the petitioner and advancement of pay, is in accordance with law. Therefore, no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Admittedly the petitioner has been appointed in the year 1966. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the post of UDC in the year 1977 and thereafter on the post of Accountant in the year 1998. It is admitted that on promotion to the post of Accountant, the petitioner was not given the promotional pay scale as the petitioner was already receiving the same pay scale and by granting benefit of Rule 22-D of the Fundamental Rules the petitioner was given a special pay of Rs.250/-. Therefore, it is admitted that the petitioner remained in the same pay scale with the additional benefit of special pay of Rs.250/-.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that as the petitioner was promoted twice during the tenure of 24 years, to give benefit of the policy as per Clause 2(b), the petitioner was not found to be entitled. It is submitted that as the petitioner was promoted and the pay scale was extended to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner never remained stagnated. In fact the petitioner was given due promotion after his completion of successful tenure on such feeder posts.
However, when the contention of the respondents has been tested on the anvil of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Daulat Ram Rajak (supra), it is found that even if the petitioner was promoted to the post of Accountant in the year 1998 after the first promotion in the year 1977 then also the petitioner was not extended any advance pay scale on promotional post because the petitioner was getting the same pay scale prior to his promotion in the year 1998. The petitioner was extended the special pay of Rs.250/-by granting benefit of FR 22-D. This Court in Daulat Ram Rajak (Supra) has held as under:
"8.From perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the entire purpose of the scheme is to give the benefit of minimum two higher pay scale to the employees of the State Government. The opening para provides that the Government Employee in the entire service period should be extended the benefit of two higher pay scale. Apart from the pay scale on which he was appointed at the time of entering into the service. Para 2 of the said circular provides that if an employee has completed 12 years in the same pay scale he would be entitled for higher pay scale and 2nd higher pay scale after completion of another 12 years; total 24 years. Para 2 (kha) which is relied by the learned Single Judge provides that if a Government employee after the appointment in regular service completes 24 years of service and if he is not extended more than one higher pay scale apart from the pay scale applicable at the time of entering into the service by way of time bound promotion/ selection/ up-gradation, he would be entitled to another higher pay scale under the scheme. Now in the light of the aforesaid factual position, the present case may be looked into. 9. The appellant was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 28.2.1983. He had continued in the same status without any promotion up to 28.2.1995. After completion of 12 years of service, he was extended benefit of 1st time bound promotion in the pay scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/-. He was extended such benefit w.e.f. 28.2.1995. Thereafter on 18.2.2003, the appellant was promoted from Assistant Teacher to Upper Division Teacher after the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee but his pay scale had remained same i.e. Rs.5,000-8,000/- and in fact no benefit of higher pay scale, in spite of the promotion, was extended to the appellant on 18.2.2003 though his status was changed from Assistant Teacher to Upper Division Teacher. Thereafter, he had continued in the same pay scale up to 2007 when he had filed a representation to the respondents for grant of benefit of second time bound promotion in the higher pay scale, but it was turned down. The entire purpose of the circular as stated hereinabove is to extend the benefit of two higher pay scales to the employees during his entire service period, apart from the initial pay scale in which he was appointed. The object of issuance of circular is that the employee should get minimum two higher pay scales during the entire service tenure which may be either by way of promotion or by time bound promotion. The appellant though was promoted but without benefit of higher pay scale. If he could have been extended monetary benefit of higher pay scale on 18.2.2003 at the time of promotion, then he was not entitled to claim second benefit unless he completes 12 years after the promotion. In the present case, if the analogy of the respondents is accepted, then the appellant would continue in the service till 2015 in the same pay scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/- for which he was extended benefit at the time of first time bound promotion w.e.f. 28.2.1995, meaning thereby for a period of 20 years he would get the same pay scale which he was getting w.e.f. 28.2.1985. This is not the intention of the aforesaid circular. The entire purpose of issuance of said circular is to extend the benefit of minimum two higher pay scales to the employees and if the aforesaid analogy is accepted, the entire purpose of issuance of circular and beneficial would be frustrated.
10.A learned single Judge of this Court considered the similar issue in the case of Nathulal and held as under:
“6.In reply the respondents did not dispute that the petitioner was firstly promoted from the post of L.D.C. to the post of U.D.C. vide order dated 11.03.1982 and at that time only he was granted the benefit of higher pay scale. They have admitted that the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Accountant in the same pay scale as he was getting while he was U.D.C. Thus, the benefit of higher pay scale was extended only once on 11.03.1982 when he was promoted as U.D.C.
7.In the circumstances when admittedly on promotion as Accountant the petitioner's pay scale remained the same as he was getting as an U.D.C., he could not hae been denied the benefit of Kramonnati Policy.
8.The petitioner in order to clear the position that he was promoted on the post of Accountant in the same pay scale has placed reliacne on the amendndment in M.P. Pay Revision Rules, 1990 on the basis of recommendation of Sinhdeo committee by which the pay of U.D.C. was revised from 1150-1800/- to 1200-2040/- which he was getting when he was promoted to the post of Accountant in the pay scale of 1200-2040.
9.Thus, in view of aforesaid I find that the petitioner was rightly extended the benefit of second kramonnati and cancellation of the same vide order dated 10.8.2009 (Annexure-P-I) is illegal and is violative of Clause 2 (kha) of the kramonnati policy dated 19.04.1999.”
In the present case, the position is similar. The appellant was entitled for second higher pay scale, after completion of 24 years of service. This request of the appellant was in accordance with the Circular Annexure-P/2 dated 19.3.1999/19.4.1999. The entire purpose of aforesaid circular as has been stated hereinabove is that the benefit be extended in terms of monetary benefit not by way of mere nomenclature in the name of promotion. The appellant was promoted as Upper Division Teacher but without any monetary benefit then he was entitled for the benefit of aforesaid circular.
11.In the result this appeal is allowed. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of 2nd time bound promotion as per circular Annexure-P/2 dated 17.3.1999/19.4.1999 to the appellant to the next higher pay scale as was applicable to the appellant. The aforesaid benefit be extended to the appellant w.e.f 28.2.2007 when he had completed 24 years of service or 12 years of service after grant of 1st time bound promotion. The aforesaid exercise be completed by the respondents within a period 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. All the arrears till date be released in favour of the appellant along with interest @ 6% p.a. The interest shall be payable on the arrears from the date it had became payable to the appellant. All the arrears be paid within the aforesaid period and in future the appellant would be entitled for the same pay scale for which he would be determined in compliance of this order. The appellant is entitled for cost of litigation which we quantify Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only), payable by the respondents."
From the aforesaid interpretation of the policy by the Division Bench of this Court, it is demystified that even if an employee is promoted to a post and remained stagnated for the period which gives entitlement to the employee to claim the benefit of Kramonnati then such benefit is required to be extended to such an employee. In the present case in hand, the petitioner was initially promoted in the year 1977 with the promotional pay scale, however, in the second promotion in the year 1998 the petitioner got the same pay scale and by granting benefit of Rule 22-D of the Fundamental Rules, special allowance of Rs.250/- was added to the pay scale, but that does not amount to enhanced promotional pay scale as the petitioner was already getting the same pay scale, therefore, the petitioner remained stagnated on the same pay scale i.e. 4000 - 6000, which was revised as per M.P. Revision of Pay Scale Rules of 1998, which was also the pay scale of the promotional post of Accountant in the year 1998, therefore, the petitioner was not given any benefit of enhanced pay scale of the promotional post. Therefore, revision of pay scale would not amount to advancement of the pay scale. In fact the petitioner remained in the same pay scale as of 1977. Therefore, the petitioner was required to be given the benefit of second Kramonnati from the date when the policy has been given effect to.
In view of the above analysis of the facts and law, the impugned orders dated 8th November, 2005 and 11.12.2014 (Annexure R/1) are hereby quashed. It is directed that the amount, which has already been recovered from the petitioner pursuant to order dated 08.11.2005, be released to the petitioner with applicable bank interest within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, revised PPF be also issued within a further period of three months.
With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.