Bhagwan Singh Bhawani vs State of M.P. & others

The petitioners are the legal representatives of Shri Bhagwant Singh Bhawani, who retired as Assistant Teacher from Government Primary School, Tribal Development, Village Neosa, District Dindori.

Shri Bhagwant Singh passed away on 10.10.2010 and, thereafter, his legal representatives have been brought on record. The petitioners are aggrieved by the non-payment of retiral dues of Late Shri Bhagwant Singh, which ought to have been paid by the respondents at the time of his retirement in the year 1993 as he attained the age of superannuation on 13.05.1993.

In the petition, the petitioner has made the following prayer:- "(b) To direct the respondents to arrange immediate payment of remaining retiral benefits i.e. amount of commutation of pension, encashment of balance Earned Leave for 4 months and amount of GPF along with interest thereon.

(c) To direct the respondents to pay amount of arrears accrued due to grant of senior pay scale of Rs.1400-40-1440-50-2340-60-2640 vide annexure P-2.

(d) To direct the respondents for fixation of pay consequent upon grant of senior pay scale of Rs.1400-2640 vide annexure P-2 and payment of arrears of pay and allowances and retiral benefits along with the interest thereon.

(e) To direct the respondents to consider grant of Krammonnati payable after completion of 12 years and 24 years, because the petitioner has not been communicated with any adverse report during the entire service of 39 years."

The petitioners contend that they are not only entitled to get the retiral dues, but also interest thereon.

Respondents No. 1 to 4, in their reply, have submitted that there are no dues to be paid to the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled to grant of Krammonati, whereas the petitioner has submitted that so far as First Krammonati is concerned, it has already been granted to him but in respect of Second Krammonati, since he is already being paid two higher pay scale the question of Second Krammonati does not arise at all.

In reply, respondent No.5 has submitted that there are no dues so far as the petitioner is concerned and that in scrutiny of the account books, it was revealed that a sum of Rs.6,318=00 was to be recovered from the original petitioner Late Shri Bhagwant Singh Bhawani as he had overdrawn the amount of his GPF. It is further submitted that a show-cause notice was also issued to the petitioner but as he failed to reply to the same, hence the recovery was made. It is further submitted that the GPF account of the petitioner was reviewed and an amount of Rs.31,405=00 was found due to the petitioner along with the interest thereon, which was paid to the petitioner and that this amount was paid after making a recovery of Rs.6,318=00. Respondents have also filed details of the withdrawal and deposit of GPF in the petitioner''s account to substantiate that no amount is due to the petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The respondent No.5 has tried to justify the recovery of Rs.6,318/- on the ground that the same were over-drawn by the original petitioners and despite recovery notice in this behalf the petitioner did not respond. The respondent No.5 has also filed the relevant documents as Annexure R/1 & R/2. Hence, in view of the same though the recovery was delayed but the same cannot be said to be unjustified. But so far as the delay in authorizing the amount of Rs.31,405/- is concerned, the petitioner is entitled to payment of interest on such amount @ 12% per annum.

So far as the denial of the Second Krammonati by respondents No. 1 to 4 is concerned, the contention of the respondents cannot be accepted that as petitioner was already being paid the Sr. Pay Scale, hence he is not entitled to the benefits of Second Krammonati because the scheme of Second Krammonati & Senior Pay Scale are not mutually exclusive and denial of Second Krammonati to the petitioner would amount to discrimination and violation of his fundamental rights under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In this context, guidance can be taken from the Apex Court''s decision in the case of State of M.P. V/s Mala Banerjee, the relevant paras 4 and 5 of the same reads as under:- "4. Under the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1990, the Respondents, were eligible for a higher pay scale on completion of 12 years of service. Subsequently, a policy dated 19.4.1999 known as the said Kramonnati Scheme came to be introduced entitling all Government servants to the benefit of two higher pay scales, the first on completion of 12 years of service, and the second on the further completion of another 12 years (24 years in all). The Appellants contend that this Circular applied to all their employees except the Teacher cadre, since the latter had already enjoyed the benefit of the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules. On 2.11.2001, the Commissioner Public Instructions sanctioned the second Kramonnati for teachers with effect from 19.4.1999. The stand of the Appellants is that this was erroneously extended without obtaining the consent of the Finance Department, and was accordingly corrected by order dated 11.10.2006. However, despite this stance, the State Government took a policy decision on 3.9.2005 granting the benefit of a second Kramonnati to Teachers, but with effect from 1.8.2003. Recovery proceedings were initiated against teachers who had been bestowed Kramonnati from the earlier date.

5 The object of the Kramonnati Scheme must be noted, as this sheds light on its application. The Scheme was introduced to remove frustration among employees who had stagnated at a particular scale for many years without promotional avenues, with the endeavour of removing any adversity in their performance. Keeping this purpose in perspective, there is no basis or justification for discriminating between teachers and all other employees. The fact that the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules were already in place at the time the Kramonnati Scheme was introduced indicates that the Appellants accepted that increase in pay scale are salutary and indeed important for educators on whose motivation and dedication the future of the country and of society is almost entirely dependent. We do not agree with the Appellants'' submission that the Respondents are not entitled to claim the benefit of the Kramonnati Scheme because they were already covered under the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, as there is no basis for the two being mutually exclusive. Indeed, we find it logical that the application of the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules regarding the eligibility of increased pay scales should be replaced by the Kramonnati Scheme, which is more generous in the benefits it provides. This is all the more so since the Appellants have themselves ordained that the said Scheme can be availed by the Respondents but from 1.8.2003, which we find to be arbitrary and devoid of any logical foundation.

(emphasis supplied)

In view of the aforesaid observations, facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed to the extent that the legal representatives of the petitioner are entitled to receive interest on delayed payment of his retiral dues as stated above and also the benefits of Second Krammonati from the date on which the original petitioner becomes entitled together with the interest @ 12% per annum. The aforesaid exercise be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of communication of certified copy of this order. C.C. As per rules.